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

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@coreos.com> wrote:
>
> No, we're not. I mean, sure, if what you care about is corporate
> support, we're doing fine.

What I care about is getting code contributions back. That's kind of
the whole *point* of the GPLv2. Not the legalese. Growing the source
code base by having participation in the project.

You try to dismiss it as "if what you care about is corporate
support", with the implication that that would be somehow
small-minded.

But that corporate support is exactly what you then on the other hand
claim to be trying to _force_ with the enforcement actions.

And the thing is, there really are lots of very good reasons to
believe that we're getting more code willing code contributions back
thanks to friendly terms with corporations, compared to any enforced
action and being difficult.

It turns out that corporations actually *want* to be compliant for the
most part. At least as long as they see you as a friend, not a foe.

And lawsuits tend to turn friends into foes.

See what the BusyBox maintainer who actually went down the lawsuit
path says in [1].

So I care about actually getting source code back.

One fairly well-known definition of insanity is "doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results".

Let's learn from previous mistakes, rather repeating the same old
mistake like you seem set on always doing.

The FSF already tried the antagonistic model, which is why people
started using "Open Source" instead.

We have been very successful exactly because we didn't have the insane
antagonism.

                 Linus

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/