Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 21:42 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote earlier today:
> > 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
> 
> Your primary argument centers around the idea that the mere 
> *existence* of *anyone* willing to file a lawsuit about a Linux 
> violation irreparably thwarts your ability to exercise your unique 
> compliance-seeking skills.  Greg has made similar arguments.  If 
> that's true, then I wonder what time frame you're talking about, 
> since Harald has been filing lawsuits since 2004, and has filed so 
> many about Linux.  Conservancy has filed none; rather, we helped
> fund and provided some logistical support for Christoph's lawsuit.

I thought it was clear, but just in case, we're talking about now.

> > 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.
> 
> That was just a short time after we discovered a Linux violation was 
> also present in addition to VMware's BusyBox violation [0], a full 
> two years before Christoph became involved and three years before he 
> chose to sue.  (This timeline has been in the VMware lawsuit FAQ on 
> Conservancy's website since the lawsuit was filed [1].)  That FAQ 
> makes reference to the fact that we sought assistance from "every
> industry contact we had".
> 
> You were among those industry contacts.  That very LinuxCon week you 
> mention, I encouraged you, Greg, and Jim Zemlin to do whatever you 
> could to attempt to get VMware to DTRT and comply with GPL.  I 
> specifically asked you and Jim to reach out to them, since as LF 
> Board members, you would have direct contacts with VMware, as a
> member company that funds LF.
> 
> Also, I believed, as you say, that you were skilled in some types of
> negotiation that I am not.  (I specifically recall saying to you as I 
> left for my flight: "we've just discovered the violation, so there's 
> time; please do what you can in the meantime".)  The large group of 
> copyright holders who were unhappy at VMware's violation then waited 
> for years for all of you to work your magic, but VMware never
> complied.  I now understand...
> > the problem would have been that your terms aren't mine.
> 
> ... that whole part of the exercise was moot because you probably 
> didn't want VMware to comply, anyway.  That explains a lot; thank you 
> for telling me.

I didn't tell you that.  You're equating not supporting all the terms
you want to impose (some of which are pretty onerous in the post
settlement regime) with being pro violators.  This would appear to be
your way or the highway.

James

> > On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 19:02 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > > Everyone here is talented and has different skills; please don't
> > > assume that yours are the only ones that produce value and good
> > > results.
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > I'm wasn't, but I get the impression you do.
> 
> Your impression is incorrect.  I have great respect for your skill in
> achieving GPL compliance outcomes in the specific industry sectors 
> where you've deployed them.  I believe your stories of all the 
> successes you've had and told me about over the years, and I thank
> you for that work.
> 
> [0] VMware's BusyBox violation was resolved *without* litigation, and
> VMware
>     still ships, AFAIK, a GPL-compliant BusyBox as part of their
> products
>     today -- yet another counter example to the incorrect memes about
> BusyBox
>     and its enforcement in this thread.
> 
> [1] 
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html
> --
>    -- bkuhn
> =====================================================================
> ===
> Become a Conservancy Supporter today: 
> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>