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

[Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:04:59AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> Ok, I'm not saying "never should legal action be taken", but what I am
> saying is the same thing that Linus said, "only under the most dire
> circumstances", the nuclear option.
> 
> So yes, if someone takes all of our source code, slaps a different
> license on it and calls it something else, I would be first in line to
> call up my lawyer to get them to stop doing that.  But that's never been
> the case here.

Haha ! That's *exactly* what happened to us, and is the closest
we've ever gotten to legal action over licensing :-).

> Go back and read my response to Bradley again and think about what a
> company goes through when someone shows up knocking at their door saying
> "I am a representative of copyright holders of the kernel, and want you
> to release all the code you are shipping."  They batten down the hatches
> and work to fight against it for all of the reasons I already gave.

But that's *not* what happens. You're implying that this is first
contact. It isn't. The developers have already gone to that same
company, tried to find the engineers who wrote that code, and asked
them "hey, need any help in getting your code merged upstream to make
your lives easier for your next product?"

Someone only shows up knocking at their door when that approach has
failed - for *years*.

> Compare that to a _developer_ going to that same company, finding the
> engineers who wrote that code, and asking them "hey, need any help in
> getting your code merged upstream to make your lives easier for your
> next product?"

Oh snap, eh ! :-).

> Now you can work with that company, getting them to upstream bits and
> pieces of their code, until they are suddenly really invested in this
> community much more so than before and they see the business benefit of
> working together.
> 
> It's a totally different question, approach, and in the end, our way
> works, while the SFC's way does not.

You seem to think the two are completely mutually exclusive. That's
not correct. The SFC has great flexibility in negotiations, and
is responsible to the developers who allow them to act on their behalf.

Do you really think SFC is some kind of "independent" actor in these
things ? SFC has an agenda, as does everyone. But developers interests
are *paramount* for them.

> I object to the SFC's position of "let us handle those pesky copyright
> issues for you" (paraphrased), as when a developer does that, they give
> up the real power that they have.  The SFC's a one-trick pony (give us
> the code, all of it, throw it over the wall or we will sue), while as a
> developer, I have 101 tricks I can use to achieve even a better
> end-solution (the company is part of the community, not alienated by
> it.)

Again, that's not what is done. SFC also does these 101 tricks, and
just like you they have to do them in *private*, to avoid embarrassment
to the company in question.

Which may be why you have a wildly distorted view of what the SFC
actually does when negotiating with companies.

> Developers are in a more powerful position than they realize, and I
> object to the SFC taking that power away.  In fact, the SFC _needs_
> developers in order to even be in business, if no developer signs their
> agreements, there's nothing for them to do!

This is a misrepresentation of what the SFC does. As I've said
before the SFC is like a union. Their interest is in their membership's
rights.

> So I strongly support developers getting the rights to their copyrights,
> not because it can be then used as a legal club to wield against others,
> but as a way to help ensure that their company continues to always
> invest and support Linux, as they know it works out better when everyone
> has a stake in it, not just individuals, and not just corporations.

This is 100% agree with ! Developers - KEEP YOUR OWN COPYRIGHTS !
I have always done so for Samba. It can be hard, but as Greg says
here keeping your state as an individual gives you a voice.

> We really are one big happy family here, but when the SFC (or the FSF)
> gets involved, we start bickering and problems happen.  It did so with
> Busybox, and it is now doing so in Linux.  And I don't want that to
> happen.

SFC is part of the family. Might be the ones you don't want to invite
to your wedding, but they're related nonetheless :-).