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 8A6E1BA6 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA0FA8 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <559C3F56.8040606@roeck-us.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:06:30 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse , Steven Rostedt References: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> <20150707143447.6f345e91@gandalf.local.home> <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1436298670.3324.107.camel@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL enforcement actions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/07/2015 12:51 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > The point is that we aren't attempting to reach a simple resolution > with a 'right answer'. There are parties with different desires — from > demanding strict compliance with the *maximum* they can argue for the > GPL to mean, to basically wanting to act as if it's a BSD licence, in > order to avoid scaring commercial users away and feeding FUD stories > like this one¹. > I think that article is just a sign of the current Zeitgeist. Everything has to be scary nowadays, or it doesn't count. > It would be useful to have an idea of where the average core developer > falls within that spectrum — that was the first specific thing I was > hoping would come from the proposed session. > > The other specific goal (and perhaps the more important one) was to > have a coherent report about the enforcement actions and behind-the > -scenes negotiations w.r.t compliance that there is so much > misinformation and politicking about. > > To that end, we should probably invite Bradley Kuhn or Karen Sandler > from SF Conservancy to talk about their efforts. And someone from the > LF TAB will presumably also be there to discuss the compliance > viewpoint from the LF side. > ... and then have the LF attorneys brief LF member companies about the outcome of the meeting. I always find those legal briefings very useful. Guenter