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 E49C8949 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:21:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF82129 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472073661.2570.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Jiri Kosina , Greg KH Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:21:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472052583.61594.577.camel@infradead.org> <20160824174724.GE30853@kroah.com> <1472063065.2545.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160824204141.GA3114@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 23:09 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > I discussed this last year with you, and others. By us talking > > about this in a setting like this, we open ourselves up to being > > part of any lawsuits that are discussed. That's _really_ dangerous > > Is it? What if a person actually wouldn't mind to participate because > he actually believes in what the lawsuit is trying to achieve, and > would be happy to provide his testimony in a lawsuit if need be? Even if it's VMware compelling you as witness for their case? > Sure, there are corporations/employers involved (either due to > copyright assignment, or due to other contract details), but that's > up to every individual to judge and decide himself (together with > his/her employer of course). > > But I don't understand your implication that having yourself dragged > into a GPL enforcement lawsuit is somehow a personal disaster. The specific problem is that we, as kernel developers, are used to giving frank and unvarnished opinions, which are totally unlike the carefully phrased non-statements that lawyers usually make. Fine, if what you've said helps Christoph or other plaintifs, but consider what happens if an unguarded statement of yours ends up helping the alleged violator because it can be construed in a way you didn't intend. This, exactly, is the fear and, I think, you would regard something like this as a bit of a disaster. James