Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 21:06 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I work for an organization that holds copyrights in Linux, and 
> Conservancy furthermore coordinates a coalition of developers who 
> signed agreements asking us to enforce their copyrights.  We also 
> have embedded device users writing us weekly asking us to please get 
> the Linux sources for their devices.  We have a huge mandate, and 
> we're going to enforce (always adhering to the Principles of 
> Community-Oriented Enforcement, of course).  Together, we are a 
> vocal, but significant, minority of Linux contributors and users.

Thanks to the ruling you've landed us with in Germany, it does appear
that this means you actually don't have any standing to enforce GPL for
the Linux kernel .... and now neither do the rest of us.

I fear the two pong test the court required could easily be applied
here in the US once the lack of standing defence is raised.  I've
actually spent some time this week working out how we might satisfy the
tests if they can't be overturned on appeal.  It turns out that Kate
Stewart and her Montreal Polytechnic crowd have spent years developing
a tool set that we can use to demonstrate precisely what the two prong
test demands and if we have to go down this road, I trust you'll be
grateful for the time and effort the Linux Foundation (Kate's employer
for all of this) has spent ensuring that the above ruling won't be the
disaster for us that it currently appears.

James