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

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:36:38 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:


> And to further take that example: it was also a very good example of
> how companies really can help us. Any legal enforcement discussion
> absolutely should *not* be about "how does the open source community
> enforce the GPL against companies". That's just stupid talk, and makes
> it be about "individuals vs companies", which IS NOT TRUE. That's
> simply not how the community has worked in Linux, and it isn't how it
> *should* work.

If it is not "individuals vs companies" then what is it? "companies vs
companies" like IBM vs SCO? Or "foundation vs companies"? I guess the
question I have is if a copyright holder of code in the Linux kernel
finds that his code is being used in proprietary software, and wants
that code released (or simply the code of the developer be removed),
what steps should that developer take? I agree legal action is the
worse course, but there needs to be somewhere the developer can go to
get help, and influence to make the company comply. 

> 
> Seriously. I think we should see the IBM/SCO thing as an example of
> how we should all wish the GPL is to be used.
> 
> Do I want some "community effort" to try to create a "GPL test case"
> against some random badly behaving company that isnt' even all that
> *meaningful* from a development standpoint? Hell no. Quite frankly,
> anybody who sees that as a good end goal should haev their head
> examined. Yet that seems to be what the SFC sees as their goal in
> life.

If the SFC were not to use legal actions, and only be that organization
to help the above developer influence the company (by talking with them
to show how opening up their software is actually beneficial to them,
or by the shaming method if that doesn't work). What I read from you is
that you feel that the SFC is too trigger happy on the legal action
side. If SFC were to say they really wont do that, unless they get
permission from the Linux kernel community as a whole, would that make
you feel better about them?

> 
> We should put our goal posts in a totally different direction. We
> don't have a ":community effort" to do marketing. We all realize how

Really? I thought that was what the Linux Foundation was ;-)

> completely idiotic and stupid that would be. A "Software Freedom
> Marketing Center" would be laughed at.
> 
> Why the hell do people not laugh at it when it comes to legal issues?

Again, I'm guessing that is because not all kernel developers feel they
are empowered to enforce the GPL when someone abuses *their* code.

Personally, I agree with everything you say, except that those that
feel otherwise are *stupid*. We are a bit more pragmatic, and as my
wife keeps telling me, I decide things more based on logic and not
emotion. Others, like RMS base their decisions mostly on principle,
even if it logically does not make sense. I respect that, even if I
don't agree with it, but I wont call it "stupid", just "illogical".



> So I seriously believe that we should not see companies as the "enemy"
> and as a target of lawsuits. We should see the Linux companies as a
> big part of the community, and as the natural *defender* of the GPL.

100% agree.

> 
> And we already have a really good example of that that people seem to
> be ignoring.
> 
> I would really want people to completely change their thinking about
> this "GPL enforcement" thing.
> 
> The great thing about the GPLv2 was how it turned copyright law
> "against itself" (really just against traditional use of copyrigth)
> and it has been described as a legal "judo move" - using copyright to
> *open* software instead of using it as a way to *restrict* software.
> It's why people call it "copyleft", after all.
> 
> THAT is the beauty of the GPLv2.
> 
> But the people who then see proprietary software as "evil", and see
> companies as being amoral, and as the enemy (and this very much is how
> rms and the FSF was acting), those people were doing exactly the wrong
> thing, and I have been fighting that idiocy for as long as I've been
> using the GPLv2.

I agree with you on this too.

> 
> The fact that we didnt' see proprietary software as evil, and that we
> opened our arms to companies made all the difference.
> 
> Now those same small-minded people are making the SAME MISTAKE, all
> over again. I do *not* want anybody who talks about "evil" proprietary
> software to be the seen as the "protector" of the GPL. No, people who
> talk about how proprietary software is "evil" should be seen as
> *stupid* people. Because they are. We showed them wrong.

Again, I would not call them "stupid". "illogical" perhaps but not
"stupid". It's not a lack of intelligence that drives these decisions,
but the sense of principle over logic.

> 
> And similarly, we should *not* see this as some crazy "community is
> protecting itself against companies" crap. Again, that's the stupid
> and wrong-headed FSF thinking. It's bad.
> 
> We have a ton of companies that are part of the community, and the
> same way we're bad at marketing and rely on companies to do that, we
> should at least _strive_ to work towards companies doing legal
> enforcement too.

OK, I guess this answers my question above. You feel that legal
enforcement should be "companies vs companies".

> 
> That's the true "judo" move.
> 
> Because quite frankly, I think just by going by existing history,
> companies are better at lawsuits than the community is anyway. Just
> look at IBM.

The reason why I'm responding to this email is because even though I
agree with the gist of your email, the tone is very much disheartening.
Perhaps you just want the FSF and SFC to go away and not exist anymore.
But I feel that they still have done more positive than negative and
are good for the community as a whole. I agree with you that we can't
let the "principle over logic" win. But people that are driven by
principle are much more likely to get new things done than those that
just do the logical actions. The GPL was created exactly because of
this.

You once said on stage that you are more like an Edison and not a
Tesla. You like to look at what's ahead and you are not a visionary.
Which for running a project like Linux has worked out very well,
because you let the visionaries do their thing, but ground them with
reality when they needed it. I say this is not much different. We need
people like those in FSF and SFC, but we also need to ground them with
logic. I believe working with them, but really vocalizing our voice
such that they don't represent us in a light we disapprove of, would be
helpful. But simply calling them "stupid" isn't helping anyone, and
that is stupid in itself.

-- Steve