Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:35:21PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:13:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> So the thing I think you're missing here, is your own agument
> about enlightened "self interest".
> 
> Yes, Bradley and Conservancy have an agenda. They represent
> us (Samba) when that agenda and self interest *align with
> ours*. When they don't, nothing happens (remember they only
> act on our behalf).
> 
> It's just like development - they want one legal thing, you
> want another. Only when the two align do you work together.

Jeremy --- suppose there was a single person who had contributed to
Samba, and he had a different opinion from the rest of the Samba team,
and he went to the Conservancy on his own, and he and the Conservancy
decided to take legal action on that one person's behalf (since it
helped pursue the Conservancy's agenda, even if it didn't advance
Samba's interests) --- and so it was something that you and the rest
of the Samba developers didn't think was in the best interest of the
Project.  In fact, what if that legal action was something that
disrupted a relationship with a company that you considered extremely
strategic?

What would happen then?  (Assume you weren't on the board, so you
wouldn't be able to put the kibosh on it that way.)  Perhaps more
importantly, would you think that was morally a sound thing to do?

It's the fact that the Conservancy feels that it can cherry pick
developers, and act even on matters where Linus has expressed a clear
preference that it is *not* in the best interst of Linux, is why I
think the term "rogue agent" very much applies.

						- Ted