From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66431BC7 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52A6A11E for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> From: David Woodhouse To: Steven Rostedt Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:51:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> References: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL enforcement actions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Would having a Lawyer be present also be required. That way we don't > have everyone saying BS about what the law actually implies. Having a > lawyer there as just someone to keep things real would be nice. Lawyers will present whatever opinion they're paid to present. There is no "right" answer until/unless it's seen in court. And then the ruling only applies to specific circumstances. And is only binding in certain jurisdictions, as you suggested. And until it's appealed. I don't think a discussion about 'the true meaning of the GPL', or its interpretation under specific legal systems, would be particularly productive. I think it would be good, though, to have a better understanding of what people *want* the GPL to mean and what they *think* it means — perhaps better phrased as "what they would pay a lawyer to argue". The point is that we aren't attempting to reach a simple resolution with a 'right answer'. There are parties with different desires — from demanding strict compliance with the *maximum* they can argue for the GPL to mean, to basically wanting to act as if it's a BSD licence, in order to avoid scaring commercial users away and feeding FUD stories like this one¹. It would be useful to have an idea of where the average core developer falls within that spectrum — that was the first specific thing I was hoping would come from the proposed session. The other specific goal (and perhaps the more important one) was to have a coherent report about the enforcement actions and behind-the -scenes negotiations w.r.t compliance that there is so much misinformation and politicking about. To that end, we should probably invite Bradley Kuhn or Karen Sandler from SF Conservancy to talk about their efforts. And someone from the LF TAB will presumably also be there to discuss the compliance viewpoint from the LF side. -- dwmw2 ¹ http://sdtimes.com/from-the-editors-when-did-open-source-software-get-so-scary/