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 BFBAB258 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com (mail-yw0-f169.google.com [209.85.161.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398ED190 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u134so54856123ywg.3 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1472241199.5189.86.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1472225332.2751.56.camel@redhat.com> <1472230114.2751.67.camel@redhat.com> <1472241199.5189.86.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Matthew Garrett Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:55:19 -0400 Message-ID: To: James Bottomley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds , 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 3:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 15:45 -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> We agree that quiet negotiation is the preferred tactic. We agree >> that lawsuits may be necessary as a final resort. It doesn't seem >> like we're disagreeing on anything fundamental in that respect. What >> Karen has suggested is an opportunity for the kernel community to >> give clear input into when that final resort should be acceptable. > > I think the disagreement is over *when* you give up and go for the > final resort. And who you trust to take that decision. Doesn't that sound like a worthwhile thing to discuss at Kernel Summit?