From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932472AbdJWOfi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:35:38 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:49912 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932427AbdJWOfT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:35:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:35:13 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested
 Linux kernel license enforcement policy
Message-ID: <20171023143513.i6m2nm3k2x3hg5kw@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Pavel Nikulin <nikulinpi@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <CAN3U_kVTaRRW3kkSBb8Ko8NQwgkQGv3_BgfWXq1mw_1R1h4_Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171020192519.78772151@alans-desktop>
 <CAN3U_kUf488dXnWznifLbecMjOZrFFOLZVT8mrk0qHzr0+3LJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171023075022.GA2821@kroah.com>
 <CAN3U_kXLFda=iRR9V41uDUnaxx4onSkJsLfXjbHjkkO5NoD5TA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN3U_kXLFda=iRR9V41uDUnaxx4onSkJsLfXjbHjkkO5NoD5TA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:11:14PM +0300, Pavel Nikulin wrote:
> The people signing there effectively say: "we, to big extend, limit
> our options to call for expedient permanent license revocation" - the
> only thing that will ever tickle a commercial entity.

This makes no sense.  If a commercial entity is permanently in
violation, then the license stays revoked.  The whole *point* of
ethical copyright enforcement is that if the commercial entity comes
into compliance, that they can also have a way to have their ability
to use the GPL'ed code in question be also restored.

> When I first heard news of this and had a glancing look on the
> document, it looked to me almost as if it is a change to terms made on
> behalf of the "community," only after I read the document through few
> times over, I got an understanding of the semantics there.

So you're not a lawyer and have not consulted a lawyer, and yet you
feel comfortable making pronouncements about legal implications?  Just
trying to be clear...

					- Ted