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 3BF58BA6 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9CEF4 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DECB2796 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:34:47 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: David Woodhouse Message-ID: <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> References: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL enforcement actions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:06:01 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote: > I'm slightly loath to bring this up but I think it does need doing... >=20 > There are various people involved with GPL enforcement actions for the > kernel, and there seems to be a lot of misinformation about it all.=20 >=20 > Some parties are portrayed as acting excessively and inappropriately =E2= =80=94 > and with dubious motives =E2=80=94 to enforce the GPL; others as being ra= bidly > *against* enforcement and effectively wanting a BSD-licensed free-for > -all because that supports their corporate interests. >=20 > None of these portrayals are entirely accurate, I'm sure, and the > histrionics don't really do anyone any good. >=20 > I'm sure we won't reach a universal consensus, but it would be useful > to get the interested parties together and have a coherent discussion > about it, so that everyone can have a proper understanding of the fact, > and also a reasonable idea of the 'feeling in the room' regarding if, > when and how we require compliance with the GPL. >=20 Would having a Lawyer be present also be required. That way we don't have everyone saying BS about what the law actually implies. Having a lawyer there as just someone to keep things real would be nice. It also gets even more complex with what exactly the GPL can cover with various laws of various countries. -- Steve