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 09760721 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7065C228 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id c15so95458726oig.0 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:25:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linus971@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:25:03 -0700 Message-ID: To: Matthew Garrett Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , 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 Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Matthew Garrett 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/