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 BEF9F9D for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2D0190 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472241199.5189.86.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Matthew Garrett , Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:53:19 -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: 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 15:45 -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Linus Torvalds [..] > > I'm sure you've heard the term "GPL maximalist". It's not a pretty > > thing, and it's hurting us. We were successful exactly because we > > were *not* maximalists. > > > > We absolutely should fight that fringe movement. > > We agree that quiet negotiation is the preferred tactic. We agree > that lawsuits may be necessary as a final resort. It doesn't seem > like we're disagreeing on anything fundamental in that respect. What > Karen has suggested is an opportunity for the kernel community to > give clear input into when that final resort should be acceptable. I think the disagreement is over *when* you give up and go for the final resort. And who you trust to take that decision. James