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 28A3589E for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14CEA7 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:49:24 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20160830174924.GD36626@jra3> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison 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: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, .jra@samba.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: > > That brings up a question, who exactly is the SFC representing here? > 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? Ah, this could be a big part of the misapprehensions in this thread ! While it is possible to sign over copyrights to the SFC, this is not commonly done by member projects (I think I'm safe in saying that). It's also not required to assign copyright in order for SFC to represent copyright holders in enforcement actions. In Samba for example (which I can talk publicly about), *NO* devlopers have assigned any copyrights to the SFC, they are merely acting as an enforcement agent authorized to do so on our behalf - by the wishes of the developers. The Samba developers can revoke such permission at any time and for any reason. The reason we haven't is that the consensus for Samba is that SFC is doing a good job representing our interests.