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 E57C271 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD4E177 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:58:53 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20160826235853.GA6898@jra3> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <20160826224213.GA1181@jra3> <20160826230236.yky53kd5k4632ftd@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160826230236.yky53kd5k4632ftd@thunk.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds , 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 Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:02:36PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Ah, but *which* developers? There are a huge number of entities who > own copyrights in the Linux kernel. Does the Conservancy get to pick > and choose which developers they will listen to? What about the > companies that own copyright in the Linux kernel, such as Red Hat, > IBM, Intel, Google, and others? Do they get a seat at the table? It's pretty clear that this applies to individual copyright holders who have joined Conservancy's GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers, not corporations with their own legal department and lawyers who can make decisions about compliance for themselves. Even closer to my analogy of a union than I originally thought, actually :-). By definition these are developers who agree with the published "Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement" document, which does a good job of setting out when and how enforcement should be handled. > What about Linus's opinions? Is the Conservancy going to at least ask > the major copyright holders whether they are OK with a lawsuit before > going ahead, and stop if they say No? Or so long as you can find some > number of developers who say, "go for it!" you'll start filing the > paperwork at the courthouse? Can you describe the conditions you personally would feel justify filing a lawsuit over GPL non-compliance ? Even if you reply "never" that would be a good data point to understand your opinions on this. > There have been at least some representation made by Conservancy staff > that appear to denote that they have their set of developers and that > they are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what > other copyright holders might think. Perhaps it might be > understandable why some might feel that your term of "rogue actor" > might actually be appropriate? If following this: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html means you are a "rogue actor", then I question your understanding of the language.