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 48A7E9D for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org (ganesha.gnumonks.org [213.95.27.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9084F12C for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:10:20 +0200 From: Harald Welte To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20160829111020.vqxjyqpb3hcgnsms@nataraja> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <87bn0dnc6f.fsf@ebb.org> <1472348609.2440.37.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160828042454.GA8742@jeremy-acer> <20160828125542.7oejzcbpeozkrq3k@thunk.org> <20160829062638.GA12415@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160829062638.GA12415@kroah.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , "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: , Hi Greg, On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:26:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > No one I have talked to has ever said that any of those companies were > actually doing anything "wrong" with regards to the GPL at all. I'm not sure whether this is generally true. As somebody very concerned about "bad" enforcement and the fall-out it can generate, and also as somebody who has maybe even set the example on how to do GPL enforcement (in Germany) at all, I have had a look at some of the (few) cases that actually went to court, and actually also attended one of the court hearings (against Telefonica) in person. And the reason he lost (or rather backed out before loosing) that particular one was merely based on procedural mistakes, and not on merits of the case. Unfortunately the detailed legal briefs and filings of lawsuits in Gemany are not published (and to the contrary, they are copyrighted works of the lawyers who write them), so it is rather hard to know what actually happened. So yes, there are all kinds of allegations and rumours about what Patrick did or didn't do. With none of the parties involved talking about what actually happened, it is difficult to get down to the truth. The biggest problem that I actually see in terms of Patrick's enforcement that he didn't talk about it, and hence created an atmosphere where rumours, fear, uncertainty and doubt can dominate the discussions. His unwillingness to explain himself even within the netfilter developers or the netfilter core team were also the reason why he ultimately was suspended. > He just went for small companies who couldn't defend themselves. This is getting more and more off-topic, but I wouldn't e.g. call Telefonica a "small company". > We don't want GPL "enforcement" to ever be like patent trolls, that way > is a death sentence for Linux. This is very clear, and that's what the SFC has spearheaded with it's "principles of community-oriented enforcement". So yes, if the allegations against Patrick are true, then it is something where probably everyone in this discussion thread agrees it is far outside the consensus of when or how enforcement should be done. But it is exactly because it is _against_ what the SFC stands for, not because the SFC is in any way doing anything that can be compared to the alleged activities of Patrick McHardy. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)