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 45FD2B3D for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3B64209 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03062207AB for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 17:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:25:12 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Tim Bird Message-ID: <20150708212512.GA31140@kroah.com> References: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> <20150707200002.GA8315@kroah.com> <1436300310.3324.115.camel@infradead.org> <559D44AF.9090406@sonymobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <559D44AF.9090406@sonymobile.com> 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 Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > > > On 07/07/2015 01:18 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 13:00 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >> 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 :) > > > > A lot of those developers will be in the room too, of course. > > > > But the "efforts" are being driven *by* Conservancy on *behalf* of > > those developers who have asked Conservancy to do so. And I suspect > > someone from Conservancy is better placed to give up-to-date > > information about what's actually happening "on the ground". > > > > The point is to get people in the room and have a direct discussion > > without hearsay or misinformation — and doing that *without* someone > > from Conservancy doesn't really make much sense. > > My experience with this is that you'll get one side (and perspective) > of the compliance enforcement story, only. Companies involved in > compliance "improvement" exercises simply will not comment on them, so > it's not easy to tell if the remedies being requested are understood > by all parties or not, and whether I'd agree with them. s/will not/usually can not/g I'm worried that since a lot of people can't talk about this, for various reasons, that the usefulness of it might not be all that helpful. > From my standpoint it would be useful to hear the Conservancy's stance > on a few issues. What specific issues are you curious about that you think would be good to discuss / hear about? thanks, greg k-h