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 ACE927AA for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 03:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED25131 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 03:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472353830.2440.60.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:10:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20160828020230.GA14090@ebb.org> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <87bn0dnc6f.fsf@ebb.org> <1472348609.2440.37.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160828020230.GA14090@ebb.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 19:02 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > James Bottomley wrote, a few minutes ago: > > I believe you but I don't believe you had any conversations which > > could lead to a significant change in business practices, which is > > my primary issue.... Your inability to recognise that there are > > other methods > > Everyone here is talented and has different skills; please don't > assume that yours are the only ones that produce value and good > results. I'm wasn't, but I get the impression you do. I also wasn't talking about results, I was talking about methods. Knowing there's a threat of legal action lurking in the background produces far different conversations because it puts the other party on the legal defensive ... for all of us, not just for you. > Anyway, this is why we brought VMware's violation [0] (and many > other ones too) to you, to Greg, to Jim Zemlin, and to many others > *before* we even began our Step 1. I told you privately many times > what I now say publicly: you can acheive important compliance results > that we can't, but vice-versa is also true. Well, my recollection of the first conversation about VMware in San Diego airport in 2012 was you telling me you wanted to go after them and me giving you all my concerns around the possibility of an adverse judgement. Beyond wanting my copyrights, I don't recall you asking for any strategic input. > > but our problem, as a community, is that what you do with your > > coalition affects all of us and impacts the project we care about > > deeply. ... Without mutual trust, there's no basis for negotiation That's not quite what I said since the latter statement referred to the process of negotiating compliance not negotiating within a community. However, I suppose that is a valid point I didn't raise, so I'll address it. > Together, we're greater than the sum of our parts, if we all see past > "my way or the highway" tendencies. Our coalition did that, by > disclosing, to you and the LF, the violation reports that Conservancy > received, so you could work on them first. Well, you told me you were going after them. I didn't realise that meant you were also offering me the opportunity to get them to settle on your terms ... However, now I do, the problem would have been that your terms aren't mine. > When will you show similar cooperation and trust? Since co-operation and trust seems to mean disclosure of intended actions, I believe I have. If it is to mean more, it would have to be mutual. James > [0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016- > August/003562.html > -- > -- bkuhn