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 CD06A1BB for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B46DA7 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 03:03:38 -0400 From: Josh Triplett To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20160825070338.i5g5obwgjamaq7fk@x> References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472052583.61594.577.camel@infradead.org> <20160824174724.GE30853@kroah.com> <20160824205011.GA31615@ebb.org> <20160824215447.GA5368@kroah.com> <20160825040619.GA32072@ebb.org> <20160825063707.fcgu3ogqqcun2vmy@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160825063707.fcgu3ogqqcun2vmy@thunk.org> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:37:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:06:19PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > I work for an organization that holds copyrights in Linux, and Conservancy > > furthermore coordinates a coalition of developers who signed agreements > > asking us to enforce their copyrights. We also have embedded device users > > writing us weekly asking us to please get the Linux sources for their > > devices. We have a huge mandate, and we're going to enforce (always adhering > > to the Principles of Community-Oriented Enforcement, of course). > > Bradley, > > If the Conservancy is going to do what it's going to do, it's not > clear what's the purpose of having a discussion. > > Having a debate implies that there is a question on the floor, and to > date it's not clear what the question or questions would be. Yes, > it's clear what you and Karen have proposed as the *topic*, and the > Conservancy's positions aren't really a secret --- but that's not a > debatable question; it's not a specific proposal that could be > examined. A few possibilities: - What's the right way to handle enforcement? (The most general version of this question has no hope of consensus, but I suspect we could fairly easily reach consensus about what we don't want to see people doing, for instance.) - What (if anything) do we do in response to the "wrong" way to handle enforcement? Would we ever have a response at the kernel level, rather than just within a maintainer team (as happened with netfilter)? Is there a line where we'd stop taking patches from someone because they've created problems in the legal arena? Where is that line? - Do any of our current development procedures make enforcement easier or harder? - Could we incorporate anything into our development procedures that improves the situation, analogous to the DCO? (Not suggesting a live brainstorming session, but rather suggesting that if a concrete proposal exists for such a change, Kernel Summit seems like the place to discuss it.) - EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and MODULE_LICENSE. I know that some history exists suggesting that they've helped with some cases. Do they potentially make enforcement more difficult, though? (This also includes informal or internal enforcement/compliance efforts; for instance, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL may provide a supporting argument for such efforts, but conversely EXPORT_SYMBOL may then hinder such efforts.) - A recent proposal (with patch) suggested adding an additional (GPL-compatible) license to the table of licenses in MODULE_LICENSE. Should that happen? Would it make sense to use a different approach in MODULE_LICENSE, such as just "GPL-compatible" or "GPL and additional rights"? Would any of the possible approaches there cause problems? Some of these questions may potentially work better on a mailing list; some of them seem like good topics for in-person discussion, especially if there's research or answers that friendly legal experts could provide.