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 8B7EC258 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 21:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (mail-oi0-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B09FA5 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 21:51:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 188so38058513oif.2 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:51:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linus971@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:51:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Allison Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: 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 Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > These days we rely on Conservancy doing the kind of back-room negotiation > that they are really good at, and they've never failed us on this. Lawsui= ts > *are* a last-ditch nuclear option. Jeremy, I trust *you*. But I do not trust Bradley, for example. Bradley talks the talk here when called out on it, but elsewhere he clearly sees enforcement not as just a last ditch nuclear option. I've heard that complaint from people in private conversations, but you can find it in public posts too. For example, we had a really nasty issue with Patrick McHardy, and sadly, the companies involved apparently didn't dare talk about it for fear of bad press (even if the badness was from our side). I was actually informed by Karen that the SFC finally made the thing public (thanks Karen - I really appreciated that), but when I went looking for it I find Bradley Kuhn making comments like these: http://lwn.net/Articles/695014/ Let me highlight that l;ast sentence: "Finally, while discussions about GPL and its derivative/combined works requirements are basically =E2=80=9Cold hat=E2=80=9D to our community= , the discussion is completely new to the Courts. We'll have to bring the question to a lot of Courts in a lot of different ways to get clarity. But, once we do that, then we'll know, and everyone can proceed with more certainty." Look, guys. This is Bradley EXPLICITLY talking about using the courts as a way to "clarify" issues. So _excuse_ me for not finding Bradley Kuhn very trustworthy on this issue. He's on public record on doing exactly that I am arguing we should *NOT* be doing. Lawsuits aren't about "clarification". They aren't something we should hope for in order to "proceed with more certainty". > Full disclosure: I'm on the Conservancy Board of Directors, so I obviousl= y > agree with their mission. Please, see above. If you're on the Conservancy board of directors, maybe you should clarify with Bradley, who is listed as _president_ of the board, what that mission actually is? Because right now, I'm getting some _very_ mixed messages. Linus