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 15128958 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D82819B for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 23:46:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1472074956.2570.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472052583.61594.577.camel@infradead.org> <20160824174724.GE30853@kroah.com> <1472063065.2545.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160824204141.GA3114@kroah.com> <1472073661.2570.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1472074956.2570.47.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Wed, 24 Aug 2016, James Bottomley wrote: > I'm not advocating that we don't have the session, I just want everyone > to have a very clear understanding of why there's a huge concern about > discussing an ongoing case. Especially given the fact that it hasn't been proposed by Karen (at least as I read it) as solely VMWare-centric topic in the first place at all. My reading of the proposal is "Seems like some of you guys seem to be uncertain or uncomfortable regarding the GPL enforcement success in today's world; let's discuss that". Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs