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 60F1F25A for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 02:58:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0206.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.206]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32B5129 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 02:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:58:42 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jeremy Allison Message-ID: <20160827225842.3f93f26d@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , 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 Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:02:10 -0700 Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 06:26:55PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Again, when the lawyers get involved, you have lost. I know you feel > > that you have to get lawyers involved to "win" the last bit of a fight, > > but really, that's pointless, because you just lost. > > This seems to be your answer to the question: > > "Can you describe the conditions you personally would feel justify > filing a lawsuit over GPL non-compliance ?" > > and your answer is "never". > > That's a valid answer, and I respect that. > > However, other Linux devs feel differently as they joined the > Conservancy GPL Compliance Project For Linux Developers. There > are licenses that embody the "no consequence for non compliance" > attitude, the most popular being the BSD or MIT licenses of course. > > [...] > You now appear to want to change the conditions under which > most contributors added code - to one that has no legal > penalties for non-compliance with the license. > > If you really want that I'd genuinely be interested in you > making such a proposal to the Linux kernel developers and > askng them to change the license. Not being a kernel developer > (other than some small cifsfs changes) I have no skin in the > game but I'd love to see the results of that vote, I think > it would be fascinating (and I give no predictions as to which > way that vote would go). Who can predict that? Nobody ever expected Brexit to pass, right? ;-) Anyway, if you ask 10 Linux kernel developers how they feel about their contributions to the kernel and the GPL, you'll get 10 different answers. The Linux kernel is owned by several copyright owners, and thus, everyone has the ability to choose how they will respond to non-compliance. Some may want to have the Conservancy to support them, others may not. It's really up to them. Obviously Linus and Greg choose not to. But they can't control what others may do. Karen handed me a contract (again), and I still haven't had time to read it (lots of personal matters at hand at the moment). I wont know if I'll sign it till I've fully read it. Personally, I believe the GPL has been the reason for the success of Linux, and yes, part of that is that people don't want to be sued for non-compliance. But copyright isn't the same as a trademark where one must defend it when an issues is known (at least in the US). Greg and Linus feel that diplomacy is the best method for getting companies to come around. But that takes time. Lawsuits are similar to going to war, and although war has faster results, usually those results do not end up as well as diplomacy would have in the long run. I'm not sure Greg's answer is really "never". But I think this is similar to the analogy of dealing with rogue nations. Going to war is never actually off the table, but it's something that one really will avoid. One doesn't need to threaten lawsuits (or war), but the fact that lawsuits (and war) do exist and can be used, does live in the back of minds of those that are not in compliance. Basically what I'm trying to say is that this is nothing like making Linux have a BSD license, but that GPL insists that people share, and that's the intent of the license. Being in non-compliance isn't just against the law, but also makes you look like a schmuck, and you can be shamed for that. One isn't shamed for not sharing the BSD code, because the BSD intent is do what you want, we'll just make more. -- Steve