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 A5B37258 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DD41AB for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472229438.5189.79.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Karen Sandler , Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:37:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1472225020.3680.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1472225020.3680.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , 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 Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:23 -0400, Karen Sandler wrote: [...] > When Conservancy acts either publicly or with any legal action, we > do so on behalf of and in coordination with the kernel developers > that are part of our coalition. We talk extensively with those > developers before taking any action. Anyone who joins our coalition > is part of those conversations. This is a big part of what bothers me about the way this is happening. The idea that your opinion only counts if you've already agreed to support SFC actions. Effectively it disenfranchises the majority in the kernel and leads directly to a lot of the irritation that's been coming out on the list. [...] > As I told you in person, you're exaggerating what the dismissal said, > and what its impact may be. As I believe you're aware, a German > lawyer unconnected to Christoph's case published a memo in German > about the case: To clarify, I did note that an appeal is ongoing; I didn't prejudge the outcome, I just said that I think there's a viable way forward from the worst case outcome and the LF has been funding the tool work we'll need to survive in that world. > Finally, James, Greg, you both talked about your approaches working > with companies internally to keep them upstreaming and to not violate > GPL. With larger, older software companies that act more rationally - > - like IBM and Intel which Greg mentioned -- this work is invaluable. My point was that the business principles that underlie compliant behaviour are explicable to all companies, including smaller, less open source savvy ones, and I have direct experience doing this. James