From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: riel@surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:37:35 -0400 Subject: Kernel contributions from organisations and individual privacy In-Reply-To: <20150611232623.GA2026@www.mrbrklyn.com> References: <55791A7C.1030904@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611142829.GC17984@kroah.com> <55799E35.5080608@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611153813.GA5058@kroah.com> <5579B9D3.9030208@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611175700.GF22639@kroah.com> <20150611232623.GA2026@www.mrbrklyn.com> Message-ID: <557A1BBF.1070007@surriel.com> To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On 06/11/2015 07:26 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > Not at all. You have a good point there are definitely legal situations > other than relicensing which are problematic. > > Lets say Apple decides that are going to take the Linux Kernel and > alter it extensively, in order for it to work with a new hardware platform > that they created. And lets say don't return the code base to the public. > Now who is going to protect the license and sue them? You have literaly > thousands of partiticpants who have standing now in this case. That means a thousand possible plaintiffs. s/Apple/VMware/ and you get this: http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/ A number of GPL enforcement projects involving the Linux kernel have resulted in GPL compliance already. -- All rights reversed.