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 81B45308 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pure.motives.com (pure.motives.com [207.192.71.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46854290 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472499769.4534.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Karen Sandler To: Jiri Kosina Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:42:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1472403654.2420.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160829090703.1c063975@gandalf.local.home> <1472486062.2376.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160829121615.25e5ddce@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Owning your own copyrights in Linux List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This has all been quite a discussion! I wanted to clarify a few things: * [1] * Some of the statements made in this discussion rely on legal assertions that aren't quite right. [2] * As others have pointed out, every part of Conservancy's approach to enforcement is designed to take risk away from companies out of compliance. [3] * I'm really glad that people are thinking about these issues. [4] * Over time, regardless of what individual Linux copyright holders or Conservancy do, others will bring law suits that will impact the kernel. [5] Conservancy spearheads a coordinated[6] and downright timid approach, codifying our principles so that companies out of compliance can hold us to them. We merely represent some kernel developers in exercising their rights. We do this because we think it's right, and we re-evaluate this together with our coalition at every step. And we do so in a coordinated and litigation-avoiding style. I only proposed the KS session after getting encouragement from several prominent kernel developers (and given that there was precedence for such a legal-related discussion [7]). I want proper time for everyone to reflect on what has been said on this thread and to provide well thought out feedback in whatever forum is comfortable for them. We propose to have this discussion in many different venues and places over the next six months (whether or not there's an official session at KS and whether or not we are there to participate if so). Bradley and I will each be present at a lot of conferences and events over the next six months. At any of these events where people are interested, we'll host sessions in whatever format is appropriate to meet with Linux developers and stakeholders to discuss Conservancy's enforcement activities, to get feedback, and incorporate the ideas we hear into our work and strategies. We'll post summaries of the meet-ups (to the extent we can and still respect requested confidentiality) to our principles mailing list[8]. Conservancy will be less active on this thread in the future. Obviously we can't respond to every single criticism on every list, anyway. Developers from our coalition are already participating and likely will continue to do so directly. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Conservancy has tons of other work to do, supporting its member projects (many of which are permissively licensed btw), Outreachy[9] and a number of other important initiatives like our employment agreement project, providing good copyleft educational materials and solving the nonprofit accounting problem. karen [1] I admit, the legal profession isn't the best... I maintain my legal credentials, but other than teaching classes for other lawyers I'm not primarily in that role anymore. (I do continue as a volunteer and give legal advice to FSF and GNOME as my free time permits - not much this past weekend after following this whole thread, haha!) As Executive Director of Conservancy, I rely on other lawyers for Conservancy's legal work. Not being able to see the source code to a device that is literally sewn into my body and screwed into my heart gives me a slightly different perspective on software freedom and has caused me to contribute anyway I can, even if I haven't coded in years. I appeal for the copyleft generally on safety, security and business reasons. I also admit that while I have a pretty thick skin, I was somewhat taken aback by the not-so-veiled threat of disbarment. FWIW, lawyers can hold public or quasi-public sessions without automatically running afoul of legal ethics. There is a long list of attorneys active in the field who have presented at free and open source software events about myriad topics. [2] IAAL (though my primary work role is no longer in legal capacity) but TINLA. I cannot point all of these out for obvious reasons. [3] When we contact them one of the first things they see are the ways we commit to making the process comfortable for them. This is true for anyone who researches who we are and finds the Principles on our site. The Principles not only talk about law suits as a last resort, but provide the much more generous termination provisions, giving first-time violators automatic restoration if the violation is fixed in a timely fashion. We also respect confidentiality from companies who we believe have a chance of doing the right thing, because while Linus may enjoy taking a public potshot at a company out of compliance, I know from some companies first hand that this is the singular thing that makes them most nervous about committing to the kernel. There's a real fear that even if they come into compliance they'll exposed to liability by some other rightsholder in some jurisdiction somewhere. [4] I don't think that a publicly archived list is the best venue for it. Also, some of the developers in our coalition have strong beliefs but soft voices. [5] The majority of law suits in the last couple of years have not been from anyone in Conservancy's coalition. Obviously, there are the suits brought by Patrick, but there's also Versata/Ameriprise/Ximpleware in which the GPL got caught in unrelated cross-fire. Whether or not the kernel community wants to participate in law suits, courts will surely wind up having GPL-related issues brought before them, and the results of those cases will apply to the kernel as well. Info on the Versata case is here: https://opensource.com/law/14/7/lawsuit-threatens-break-new-ground-gpl-and-software-licensing-issues [6] We try to coordinate with anyone active in the space who is willing to coordinate with us. This incidentally has included rogue enforcers, industry lawyers and anyone who does work to understand the copyright status of the kernel (btw, in an early post, I said we coordinated with dmg when I really meant 'gave feedback on big picture issues and tried to coordinate' with the work LF is funding. They have graciously listened to our comments, but I want to be clear that Conservancy has not been invited to participate or collaborate in the project in any way.) [7] The Q&A I proposed was not intended as a negotiation or an attempt to provide legal advice to anyone. In fact it was not dissimilar in character from the session Karen Copenhaver (lawyer to Linux Foundation) led with Keith Bergelt in 2009. [8] https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/principles-discuss which we launched last year to discuss the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement. [9] I note that Outreachy itself has around 10 paid interns per year for the kernel, and apparently "ranked #13 for contributions to the Linux kernel during the last cycle" for organizations. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/linux-foundation-releases-development-report-highlighting-contributions-to-linux Thanks to everyone on this list who mentored and supported these interns.