[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:23 -0400, Karen Sandler wrote:
[...]
>  When Conservancy acts either publicly or with any legal action, we 
> do so on behalf of and in coordination with the kernel developers 
> that are part of our coalition.  We talk extensively with those 
> developers before taking any action. Anyone who joins our coalition
> is part of those conversations.

This is a big part of what bothers me about the way this is happening. 
 The idea that your opinion only counts if you've already agreed to
support SFC actions.  Effectively it disenfranchises the majority in
the kernel and leads directly to a lot of the irritation that's been
coming out on the list.

[...]
> As I told you in person, you're exaggerating what the dismissal said,
> and what its impact may be. As I believe you're aware, a German 
> lawyer unconnected to Christoph's case published a memo in German 
> about the case:

To clarify, I did note that an appeal is ongoing; I didn't prejudge the
outcome, I just said that I think there's a viable way forward from the
worst case outcome and the LF has been funding the tool work we'll need
to survive in that world.

> Finally, James, Greg, you both talked about your approaches working 
> with companies internally to keep them upstreaming and to not violate 
> GPL. With larger, older software companies that act more rationally -
> - like IBM and Intel which Greg mentioned -- this work is invaluable.

My point was that the business principles that underlie compliant
behaviour are explicable to all companies, including smaller, less open
source savvy ones, and I have direct experience doing this.

James