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 40EFF904 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE8C23A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:20:33 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20160830172033.GP3296@wotan.suse.de> 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> <20160830161557.GN3296@wotan.suse.de> <20160830164540.GA4925@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160830164540.GA4925@kroah.com> Cc: ".jra"@samba.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, James Bottomley , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:55:42AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 09:24:54PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > > > > Your opinion on that is clear and I understand why you hold it. > > > > There are many other developers who hold the same opinion, but > > > > lots of them work on FreeBSD not Linux. > > > > > > > > Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Greg and Ted seem to agree > > > > with you, Linus (like me) seems to imagine there can be a case for > > > > that shiny red button. > > > > > > For the record, I believe there can be a case for the shiny red > > > button. I just want Linus, and not the SFC (or some --- as admitted > > > by the SFC --- minority set of developers), to be the one who decides > > > when it's appropriate to push it. > > > > > > I've said it before, and I've said it again. For me, this is much > > > more about a project governance issue. We don't let random pissed off > > > army officers decide when to start World War III. > > > > If you are trying to equate "random pissed off officers" with those kernel > > developers part of the SFC alliance, then I have to say that is perhaps one of > > the most stupid misrepresentations of members of SFC that I have heard so far. > > Unless of course your statement is educated, you know all members part of SFC > > and have asked each one why they joined. > > That brings up a question, who exactly is the SFC representing here? I've come out: http://www.do-not-panic.com/2016/02/im-part-of-conservancys-gpl-compliance.html Others have as well. We don't force people to come out though obviously, so its optional. Some folks would prefer their association to remain private. That's a right they should have. What do you think? Did it ever cross your mind to consider joining ? > What developers have signed over copyrights to the SFC? Was this done > in a "permanent" way? "revoking" copyright assignment isn't exactly a > simple thing to do, last I checked, so is this really true? If this is a concern, perhaps its something SFC can address. Also, would you like a way to participate without signing off copyrights to SFC ? If so that sounds like a type of discussion we could start. > > If you don't know then please educate yourself on this as reading this type of > > incoherent nonsense being spouted out is just offending and does nothing to help. > > Without knowing the above, it's hard to know what is, or is not, a > stupid misrepresentation :) But the analogy was made so it was rather stupid and simply not contributing anything. What you describe however, sounds like useful feedback. Luis