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 2F5B5258 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E75EAB for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:29:01 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20160827232901.GB6717@jeremy-acer> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , 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, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:13:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > > Dealing with legal and compliance issues is *mandatory* for all > > open source projects larger than one developer and their dog > > with a github account. > > You state that as an absolute fact, but there is nothing that really > backs that up. An as mentioned, there really are very real arguments > against your "fact". Well I'm remembering the early days of Samba, where we ran into lawyers pretty early. I also work with lawyers in my day job who have to talk to small FLOSS projects all the time (many who are just one person + dog + github). So maybe I'm biased :-). I also could be wrong as well (it does happen :-). > Quite frankly, after having watched a few videos of Bradley talking > about what he does and _why_ he does it, I really would never want to > have him or the SFC represent Linux in court. Ever. Not unless they > make it very clear that their agenda has changed. > > Why? Because he explains how he feels that "strong copyleft" is > inherently good, and Linux is the only remaining project big enough > and meaningful enough to force legal attention on the GPL. > > In other words, his publicly stated motivation for license compliance > isn't for the good of the kernel - it's for the good of his license > enforcement. > > Quite frankly, if you let people like that be in charge of your legal > team, you're crazy. That's insane. I'm not insane. I could watch (in fact I *have* watched) some of your public talks and say "if you let people like that be in charge of your developer team, you're crazy" :-). Everyone has some peculiarities (to quote Avenue Q: "Everyone's a little bit racist, sometimes" :-). You really have to judge their work, not their public persona I find. > The only people I'd ever let be in charge of a lawsuit around Linux > are the people who have the best interests of Linux in mind. That's funny - tridge and my original criteria for being on the Samba Team was being able to make a decision on behalf of Samba that went against the interests of your employer. We were very excited when we first saw that happen with IBM employees. > Definitely not people with an agenda, where Linux is just the *tool*. > > We need to be very clear about this. The only possible situation where > license enforcement makes sense is when it's good for the *project*. > Not when it's good for license enforcement. So I 100% agree with this. Which is why when Conservancy represents us it's only after consulting with and reaching consensus with the project developers and stakeholders (as not all stakeholders develop code - we have the "Samba Team" mail alias that represents this). People can have a personal agenda, then put it aside when it's time to go to work. I've seen Bradley do that - but then again as I said I've known him a long time.