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 616AA282 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seldrel01.sonyericsson.com (seldrel01.sonyericsson.com [37.139.156.2]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD9915B for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55BA4FC9.3070301@sonymobile.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:24:41 -0700 From: Tim Bird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse , James Bottomley References: <20436.1438090619@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20150728183610.GB5307@cloud> <1438109061.5441.202.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150728185428.GD5307@cloud> <20150728213805.GA8786@kroah.com> <1438162660.26913.230.camel@infradead.org> <1438182000.2204.35.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1438184150.26511.77.camel@infradead.org> <1438187888.2204.83.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1438191159.26511.91.camel@infradead.org> <1438213176.2204.152.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1438243737.26511.114.camel@infradead.org> <1438264121.2229.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1438268514.26511.216.camel@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1438268514.26511.216.camel@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "mcgrof@gmail.com" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "jkkm@jkkm.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Firmware signing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/30/2015 08:01 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 06:48 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> >> OK, let us suppose for the sake of argument that this is correct and the >> GPL does manage to get extended to non derived included projects. > > Let's not say "non derived included projects". Let's say "independent > and separate works". Since that's the wording the GPL uses when it lays > out the circumstances under which it extends "to the entire whole, and > thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it". > ... > But sure, if a party were very keen to encourage and condone such > behaviour, they could certainly try making the estoppel-based > arguments. They might get lucky. > These sorts of discussions of legal issues in a public and persistent form sometimes do more harm than good. I don't think that people will resolve their differences on the list (or maybe at all). However, I do think that noting the differences is sufficient for us to decide if further face-fo-face discussion is warranted. Can I recommend that we follow up with discussion at the summit, if people are so inclined? -- Tim