From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3zHfxg0RHdzF0cj for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:02:30 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w0BM2BSf094365 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:02:28 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2feaq3ggmg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:02:28 -0500 Received: from localhost by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:27 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.19) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:26 -0700 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w0BM2QSw4850098; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:26 -0700 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42322136043; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.102.33.102]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9625F136040; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:25 -0700 (MST) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D5B3C4EC5EE; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:02:21 +1100 (AEDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Michael.E.Brown@dell.com, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: CLA discussion - James Bottomley's blog post today In-Reply-To: <1515656775418.74165@Dell.com> References: <1515656775418.74165@Dell.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:02:21 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18011122-0004-0000-0000-000013815F8F X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008362; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000245; SDB=6.00973631; UDB=6.00493349; IPR=6.00753576; BA=6.00005773; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00018985; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-01-11 22:02:27 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18011122-0005-0000-0000-0000859F7A5B Message-Id: <87mv1km4uq.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-11_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1801110294 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.24 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:02:31 -0000 Michael.E.Brown@dell.com writes: > https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/gpl-as-the-best-licence-governance-and-philosophy/ > > > A very timely article from James Bottomley!? He addresses CLAs and > provides a very compelling argument against them, rooted in equity. > > "Further, the IP rights tend to be a focus for corporations, so simply > joining the controlling entity (or taking a licence from it) instead > of actually contributing to the project can become an end goal, thus > weakening the technical contributions to the project and breaking the > link with end users." One of the big arguments is that it increases the amount of work you have to go through to contribute to a project. It's probably the same for you, but if for us, if there's a CLA you have to sign, you get to go speak with legal. *NOBODY* wants to go speak with legal. > Is there a danger of this happening on this project? I would dearly hope not. A number of us would actively fight it. -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.