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

James Bottomley James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com
Sun Aug 28 01:43:29 UTC 2016


On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 14:18 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I *thought* this list was for KS proposal meta-discussion,

Ideally if we can resolve it in email, we don't need a session ...

>  but this thread is now mostly substance and very little meta. :) 
> However, AFAICT, no one has declared this thread as off-topic, and 
> generally speaking, I believe everyone in the GPL Compliance Program 
> for Linux Developers, including me, is glad to see GPL enforcement 
> discussed openly.  So, I'm continuing with replies:
> 
> Today, Greg made references to a talk I gave, and drew broad 
> conclusions about my beliefs.  Yesterday, Linus made reference to an 
> LWN comment I made, and made conclusions about my moral character. 
>  This is a complex topic, and the entire breadth of everyone's view 
> cannot be summarized by out of context snippets.  I do think Greg's 
> summary of my talk is inaccurate on many fronts, but the details on
> that don't really matter.

OK, let me try for an accurate summary of the salient issues: A lot of
kernel developers don't trust your motives enough to let you enforce
their copyrights.  Personally, I don't believe you even understand what
it takes to convince a company of the business rightness of the GPL and
thus, when you say "we tried talking to them", I believe you but I
don't believe you had any conversations which could lead to a
significant change in business practices, which is my primary issue.

However, Some developers do trust you and you've built a coalition of
the willing around that and you're off selecting targets; but our
problem, as a community, is that what you do with your coalition
affects all of us and impacts the project we care about deeply.

There is a factual disagreement about what enforcement in other
projects gained them.  However, the loss of momentum in busybox is
factual and does resonate and so does the theory that it's because of
too many enforcement actions.

> I believe we function well as a community by trying lots of different
> strategies in parallel.  This works for Linux development itself, and 
> it works for GPL enforcement too.  I, Greg, and many others have done
> excellent work convincing companies to abide by GPL without lawsuits.
>   Nearly all the work by the GPL Compliance Program for Linux 
> Developers doesn't use lawyers or lawsuits.  We all use the same 
> strategy, and *almost* all the same tactics to achieve GPL compliance
> for Linux.

What's this "we"?  Community is generated by contribution and most
contribution gives rise to copyright.  If you had enough copyright in
Linux, you wouldn't need a coalition because you could enforce on your
own.

> Our disagreement is over a finer point of a specific tactic that is 
> only relevant in roughly 0.57% [0] of GPL violations, which is this: 
> "What do we do in those cases that have no resolution for years, 
> after many try to gain compliance and failed. Should anyone sue in
> that case?".

Heh, well, if I called bullshit, I'd lose my reputation for politeness
(although perhaps Linus would finally come to respect me).  Let me just
point at that your 0.57% or however you define it, is why no
corporation currently trusts you or wants to talk to you unless forced
by their lawyers.  Without mutual trust, there's no basis for
negotiation, so all your attempts at compliance are overshadowed by
this end game.

Your inability to recognise that there are other methods beyond holding
out this 0.57% club, and that a lot of other people have achieved
significant compliance and even community contributions using them, is
why your statements generate such a lot of strong reactions.  It
reminds me a lot of the 70s and 80s "Mr President, under what
conditions would you be willing to press the nuclear button?" which
isn't really a world I want to go back to.

James



More information about the Ksummit-discuss mailing list