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 B935825A for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 03:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48031AB for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 03:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472354316.2440.65.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Jeremy Allison , Greg KH Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:18:36 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds , 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 Sat, 2016-08-27 at 16:02 -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > The GPL allows legal penalties for non-compliance. We > know this as there have already been such. > > Your project has been enourmously successful - more so > than any other Free Software project in the world. And it > did so under the GPL. > > You now appear to want to change the conditions under which > most contributors added code - to one that has no legal > penalties for non-compliance with the license. This might also be a core issue. I believe everyone participating in this debate agrees there should be consequences for non-compliance. However, some people believe that the emphasis on "legal penalties" produces an escalating atmosphere that precludes other avenues. James