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 0117B721 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C70E21F for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472239791.2751.88.camel@redhat.com> From: Rik van Riel To: Linus Torvalds , Matthew Garrett Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:29:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1472225332.2751.56.camel@redhat.com> <1472230114.2751.67.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 12:03 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >  > And the thing is, I think that the reasons to bring in lawyers have > weakened markedly over time. I'm sure you remember back when some > people used to argue that the GPL was invalid and unenforceable. It > was a completely bullshit argument, and had absolutely no sane > thinking behind it, but it definitely existed. > > For the people who haven't been around enough, just google for it. > That insane argument has been made. > > Nobody makes that argument any more. The GPL is obviously enforceable > and that it's simply not an issue. Legal departments *know* it is > enforceable. > Legal departments know sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the GPL are enforceable because they have been enforced in court, and judges have decided they are enforceable. There is something to be said for the argument that the lawyers are no longer needed, because they have already done their jobs, however I am not aware of eg. GPL section 2 having been tested the same way. This may also be why the VMware thing had been dragging on for 7 (IIRC) years before a lawsuit was eventually filed. It appears to be about a different part of the GPL than the sections that everybody now agrees are enforceable. I totally agree that a lawsuit should be an absolute last resort. However, after 7 years of attempts to resolve the issue, without  progress towards a resolution, probably qualifies as a "last resort" situation. I do not think the conservancy would get much support if it were enthusiastic about starting lawsuits.