[copyleft-next] anti-lock down non-negotiable-ness (was Re: [MERGE REQUEST] reinstate dl-supp)

Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at ebb.org
Tue Dec 4 13:38:38 UTC 2012


Theodore Ts'o wrote on 13 October:
> Botched how?  Anti-lock-down was clearly non-negotiable, on both
> sides.  It's a fundamental philosophical divide.

I realize the anti-lock down provision was presented by the FSF to the
Linux developers as non-negotiable.  However, I've since, many years
later, learned that FSF leadership was never even communicated the
position of the Linux developers adequately by FSF's representatives at
the time.  Last year, RMS specifically asked me to apologize on his
behalf to every single Linux developer to tell them that he wished he'd
talked with you directly about your concerns at the time, rather than
going through legal counsel.  I think I've so-issued that apology to
you, Ted, when I saw you in person at some point, but if I didn't, I do
so now. :)

Meanwhile, I don't know what would have happened if there had been real
communication on this issue between FSF and the Linux Developers, rather
than the blustering that occurred on that fateful conference call and
other such occurrences.  Perhaps we'd have still ended up at the same
impasse that we reached.  We can't go back in time and run the
experiment again, so we'll never know.

But, I think FSF's leadership recognizes that the Linux developers
weren't negotiated with as equals during GPLv3, and that they should
have been.  Speaking briefly as a member of FSF's Board (although I
wasn't on FSF's Board at the time), I certainly think that's true and
feel bad about it, and I am sorry I wasn't on the Board at the time to
do something about it.
-- 
   -- bkuhn


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list