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

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:17:31PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Again, the SFC puts the GPL before Linux,
> 
> That's news to me. I think everyone on the alliance would have a fit if
> this were true. So please stop equating Bradley's own sentiments to that
> of the alliance's. If that's the message folks get then we need to correct
> this.

Given that the alliance's membership is secret, we only have your word
on it.  And the governance mechanisms of the alliance have also not
been spelled out publically.  Do you guys vote?  Is it weighted based
on the amount of code someone brings to the "alliance"?  Or is it just
one head, one vote?  So if someone with a large amount of code where
they own the copyright comes to the project, and Bradley then uses
this fact to browbeat a vendor, and that person says, woah, that
doesn't seem right?  Do they get one vote, or something proportional
to what they bring to the table?  Sure, they can withdraw from the
alliance, so there is _some_ recourse after you've signed on the
dotted lines, but only after 30 days, and a lot of threats could be
issued in their name in 30 days...

It doesn't help the SFC that there's no transparency in its actions.
A similar dynamic is at work when the FBI issues national security
letters with gag orders attached.  So some kind of regular
transparency report where companies have been contacted by the SFC are
described in some general way ("a handset vendor", "a consumer
electronics product"), the nature of the violation ("lack of
apparently otherwise unmodified source code available on the vendor's
FTP site", "apparent mixing of GPL code with some incompatible open
source license", "out-and-out blatent misuse of Linux code in a
completely unrelated commercial virtualization product," etc.) and the
steps taken (friendly contact, lawsuit threatened, lawsuit filed,
etc.) might be helpful in the long run.

> Its sad that misrepresented statements are why you have given up, instead of
> talking to members of the alliance and what we do, and more importantly the how
> consensus is reached.

So I don't believe they are misrepresented, because #1, a few years
ago, in a hallway discussion, I've asked Bradley point blank whether
the GPL or the long-term health of Linux development was more
important to him, and he very candidly said "the GPL".  Props for him
not dissembling, but this was not a case of my not understanding what
he said.

More importantly, #2, if you look at the 2016 linux.conf.au talk, it
was quite unambiguous.  Trying to claim that there was
misunderstanding or misrepresentation going on is roughly the same as
Trump surrogates trying to claim that Donald Trump's very clear
statements on Mexicans was all a misunderstanding pushed by the
mainstream media.  But hey, don't take my word for it; listen to the
talks for yourself and judge for yourself.

Maybe it was all rhetoric was for fundraising purposes, and wasn't
actually meant "for real" (just as the claims that Trump's words about
immigration was just to appeal to the Republic base, but it wasn't
what he _really_ believes and he _really_ isn't a racist in his heart
of hearts) --- but to the extent that Bradley is the face of "The
Alliance" when he goes and pays visit to companies, the fact that he
was making these statements just a few months ago doesn't help "The
Alliance" and it certainly doesn't help Linux since it sows FUD to the
companies who could just as easily decide to use a commercial OS like
QNX, or another Open Source OS such as FreeBSD instead.

(Never think you are irreplaceable; you aren't.  This is true just as
much for programmers and employees, as it is for operating systems.)

     	 	     	 	       	   - Ted