My question was slightly different from what is written above

Posted Feb 26, 2017 1:07 UTC (Sun) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
In reply to: My question was slightly different from what is written above by madhatter
Parent article: Principled free-software license enforcement

madhatter wrote:

but the first seemed to me to be based on a misunderstanding, and not particularly noteworthy as a result.

I disagree; as I said, I perhaps didn't ask the questions as clearly as I could have, but my point in the first question remains: this idea that using GPL enforcement as counterattack during GPL-unrelated lawsuits (such as Red Hat did with TwinPeaks), IMO deserves even more scrutiny than Principled GPL enforcement. Red Hat allowed TwinPeaks to get away indefinitely with a GPL violation just so Red Hat could get a secret (and perhaps GPL-violating in itself) patent license from TwinPeaks to settle the lawsuit. None of this is transparent; we must intuit what likely happened based on the public record.

But, as you say, it is completely unclear whether Fontana was giving his own opinions or Red Hat's. Regardless, I look forward to Fontana actually raising his concerns in the public fora designed for the purpose. I hope that he eventually does! In those comments, he can clarify why we should not question the transparency of Red Hat's actions in GPL counter-suits, but should at the same time mandate even more transparency (and we operate quite transparently already) of Conservancy's enforcement work.