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

[Jeremy Allison]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:13:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> 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".

Well I'm remembering the early days of Samba, where we
ran into lawyers pretty early. I also work with lawyers
in my day job who have to talk to small FLOSS projects all
the time (many who are just one person + dog + github).

So maybe I'm biased :-). I also could be wrong as well
(it does happen :-).

> 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.

I could watch (in fact I *have* watched) some of your public
talks and say "if you let people like that be in charge of
your developer team, you're crazy" :-).

Everyone has some peculiarities (to quote Avenue Q: "Everyone's
a little bit racist, sometimes" :-). You really have to judge
their work, not their public persona I find.

> 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.

That's funny - tridge and my original criteria for being
on the Samba Team was being able to make a decision on
behalf of Samba that went against the interests of your
employer. We were very excited when we first saw that happen
with IBM employees.

> 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.

So I 100% agree with this. Which is why when Conservancy
represents us it's only after consulting with and reaching
consensus with the project developers and stakeholders (as
not all stakeholders develop code - we have the "Samba Team"
mail alias that represents this).

People can have a personal agenda, then put it aside when it's
time to go to work. I've seen Bradley do that - but then again
as I said I've known him a long time.