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 0D0E925A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 555DE2A9 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:36:40 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Message-ID: <20160830183640.GB31453@cloud> References: <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> <20160830173803.GG3950@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds , 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: , On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:04:44AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:26:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 02:06:44PM -0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > >> > Even though I abhor what Patrick McHardy is doing, I still can't quite > >> > find it in my heart to have *sympathy* for his victims. Because it's not > >> > as if he's just taking random pot-shots at passers-by on the street. These > >> > people defended their actions in court, and lost. > > > >> No, that's not what Patrick did. Whenever he actually took something to > >> court, _he_ lost. Companies paid him off before then because they were > >> scared for foolish reasons, or it was honestly just cheaper to do it > >> than go to court and win. He took the traditional model of patent troll > >> to the next level. > > > > Please bear in mind that public information on what's going on there is > > very scarce, I suspect most people have only seen the SFLC statement at: > > SFLC != SFC. It will be hard, but try and look at why we have two orgs > now. SFLC did do good -- it helped with the upstream openhal efforts > and ath5k review. But the org that put out the review below and then > published the Principles is SFC, not SFLC. If it helps, they tend to go by "Conservancy" or "Software Freedom Conservancy", rarely "SFC", to avoid acronym confusion.