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 4323C949 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:42:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69A3121 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472074956.2570.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Jiri Kosina Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:42:36 -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> <1472073661.2570.42.camel@HansenPartnership.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 23:33 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote: [...] > > > 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. > > Sure, but if everyone is "just afraid" to provide a sincere testimony > (especially if this includes just people from one side of the > dispute), then I wouldn't put my bets on a positive result of the > lawsuit. I think the classic lawyer joke about their memoirs is that they should be entitled "what my client meant to say ...". Cases can be won or lost (sometimes regardless of the issues) because of an unguarded remark made by the client. I'm not advocating that we don't have the session, I just want everyone to have a very clear understanding of why there's a huge concern about discussing an ongoing case. James