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 8E18D258 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com (mail-oi0-f67.google.com [209.85.218.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2EDAB for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id s207so9611442oie.0 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:13:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linus971@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:13:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Allison 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 Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > Dealing with legal and compliance issues is *mandatory* for all > open source projects larger than one developer and their dog > with a github account. You state that as an absolute fact, but there is nothing that really backs that up. An as mentioned, there really are very real arguments against your "fact". Quite frankly, after having watched a few videos of Bradley talking about what he does and _why_ he does it, I really would never want to have him or the SFC represent Linux in court. Ever. Not unless they make it very clear that their agenda has changed. Why? Because he explains how he feels that "strong copyleft" is inherently good, and Linux is the only remaining project big enough and meaningful enough to force legal attention on the GPL. In other words, his publicly stated motivation for license compliance isn't for the good of the kernel - it's for the good of his license enforcement. Quite frankly, if you let people like that be in charge of your legal team, you're crazy. That's insane. I'm not insane. The only people I'd ever let be in charge of a lawsuit around Linux are the people who have the best interests of Linux in mind. Definitely not people with an agenda, where Linux is just the *tool*. We need to be very clear about this. The only possible situation where license enforcement makes sense is when it's good for the *project*. Not when it's good for license enforcement. Linus