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 45805BBC for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C336E2AA for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D553520B75 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 16:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:00:02 -0700 From: Greg KH To: David Woodhouse Message-ID: <20150707200002.GA8315@kroah.com> References: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> 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 Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:51:10PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > 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. > > Lawyers will present whatever opinion they're paid to present. There is > no "right" answer until/unless it's seen in court. And then the ruling > only applies to specific circumstances. And is only binding in certain > jurisdictions, as you suggested. And until it's appealed. > > I don't think a discussion about 'the true meaning of the GPL', or its > interpretation under specific legal systems, would be particularly > productive. I second this. > I think it would be good, though, to have a better understanding of > what people *want* the GPL to mean and what they *think* it means — > perhaps better phrased as "what they would pay a lawyer to argue". > > The point is that we aren't attempting to reach a simple resolution > with a 'right answer'. There are parties with different desires — from > demanding strict compliance with the *maximum* they can argue for the > GPL to mean, to basically wanting to act as if it's a BSD licence, in > order to avoid scaring commercial users away and feeding FUD stories > like this one¹. > > It would be useful to have an idea of where the average core developer > falls within that spectrum — that was the first specific thing I was > hoping would come from the proposed session. > > The other specific goal (and perhaps the more important one) was to > have a coherent report about the enforcement actions and behind-the > -scenes negotiations w.r.t compliance that there is so much > misinformation and politicking about. > > To that end, we should probably invite Bradley Kuhn or Karen Sandler > from SF Conservancy to talk about their efforts. As those "efforts" are being driven by the developers of the kernel, I think that the developers involved would be the best to present this, not the SF Conservancy people. As you point out, the SFLC is just the lawyers being hired by the developers to do what they want them to do :) thanks, greg k-h