Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL enforcement actions

[Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>]

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 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.

Maybe a survey would be better than open discussion?

I'll bet the average core developer wants to hack on the kernel, and
share in the work that everyone else is doing.  But I'll also bet the
conversation would be dominated by extremes, spiral down into
my-company-won't-let-me-say-xxyyzz, and then finally settle into
comparisons of US law with everyone else.

Eventually the real crazy talk will begin and Jens will have to admit
that he *still* hasn't open sourced his online shopping site for kernel
developer inspired action figures.

> 
> 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. And someone from the
> LF TAB will presumably also be there to discuss the compliance
> viewpoint from the LF side.

I'm not sure how much can really be disclosed, but I'd much prefer to
see fact based sessions about current enforcement actions than open
discussions about the GPL.

-chris