Friendlier GPL-Enforcement Permission Proposed By Linux Kernel Developers (kroah.com) 94
The former Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation -- and Slashdot user #41121 -- contacted Slashdot with this announcement. bkuhn -- now president of the Software Freedom Conservancy --
writes: Software Freedom Conservancy, home of the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers, publicly applauded today the proposal of the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement, which adds a per-copyright-holder-opt-in additional permission to the termination provisions of Linux's GPLv2-only license.
It apparently addresses a developer who "made claims based on ambiguities in the GPL-2.0 that no one in our community has ever considered part of compliance," according to a statement from some of the kernel developers who drafted the statement. While the kernel community has always supported enforcement efforts to bring companies into compliance, we have never even considered enforcement for the purpose of extracting monetary gain... [W]e are aware of activity that has resulted in payments of at least a few million Euros. We are also aware that these actions, which have continued for at least four years, have threatened the confidence in our ecosystem. Because of this, and to help clarify what the majority of Linux kernel community members feel is the correct way to enforce our license, the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation has worked together with lawyers in our community, individual developers, and many companies that participate in the development of, and rely on Linux, to draft a Kernel Enforcement Statement to help address both this specific issue we are facing today, and to help prevent any future issues like this from happening again. It adopts the same termination provisions we are all familiar with from GPL-3.0 as an Additional Permission giving companies confidence that they will have time to come into compliance if a failure is identified.
It apparently addresses a developer who "made claims based on ambiguities in the GPL-2.0 that no one in our community has ever considered part of compliance," according to a statement from some of the kernel developers who drafted the statement. While the kernel community has always supported enforcement efforts to bring companies into compliance, we have never even considered enforcement for the purpose of extracting monetary gain... [W]e are aware of activity that has resulted in payments of at least a few million Euros. We are also aware that these actions, which have continued for at least four years, have threatened the confidence in our ecosystem. Because of this, and to help clarify what the majority of Linux kernel community members feel is the correct way to enforce our license, the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation has worked together with lawyers in our community, individual developers, and many companies that participate in the development of, and rely on Linux, to draft a Kernel Enforcement Statement to help address both this specific issue we are facing today, and to help prevent any future issues like this from happening again. It adopts the same termination provisions we are all familiar with from GPL-3.0 as an Additional Permission giving companies confidence that they will have time to come into compliance if a failure is identified.
Monetary gain (Score:5, Insightful)
Fines and penalties aren't always about pure monetary gain. They are a means of punishment for wrongdoing and a way to dissuade others from engaging in the same behavior. Absent payment as a penalty, I suppose we could take the board of directors of a company found in violation of the GPL and have them shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably responding to a troll, but for one thing, as has been stated many times in the past, Slashdot is not one single-group-think entity. Plenty of people here respect licensing of all types, whether it's for the Linux kernel or Hollywood movies. Don't paint everyone with the same brush.
I personally work on and maintain several GPLv2 projects, and I expect the license to be followed. And I respect licensing for movies and other software too.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you need to go back to your dictionary? Prevailing != all. And you are most definitely in the minority compared to the prevailing view.
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion, not fact. I know what the word 'prevailing' means; I just disagree that it's the case here.
Re:Monetary gain (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a matter of degree. Making a business of copyright violation should be quickly shut down and punished by the legal system. Individuals violating copyright is a business model problem and should be addressed by providing the copyright materials to the individuals in a form that they will accept - such as streaming music and Netflix.
It is simple to comply with the GPL if you want to. It is another level to willfully disregard it and make a business around that disregard. So it is fine with me to give a grace period to come into compliance, but then if you choose not to comply either honor the terms and lose your license or else face the legal consequences.
Re: Monetary gain (Score:2)
If you support the GPL then you should support how a copyright holder chooses to distribute their work. On the other hand, if you believe piracy is an acceptable response to restrictive distribution then you should support GPL violations.
Many people will argue that piracy is acceptable and that the GPL should always be enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
Religion neatly demolished your vegetarian argument 2000 years ago.
Christ is both the good shepherd and the sacrificial lamb as symbolised in the sacraments of the Eucharist
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmmmm. Tasty tasty christ burger. Only at Crispy Christs, home of the Saute Savior
Re: Monetary gain (Score:1)
Only 1/4 pounds? No Szechuan sauce? Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
I see three factors:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a business of copyright violation is wrong. I'm also ok with individuals violating the GPL among a few friend too. The custom of sharing among a few friends has been with us for thousands of years. The operative would here is 'few'. The societal problem is commercial scale copyright infringement, not individual.
If you have a business model that needs broad involvement of the police force to make it succeed, then you need a new business model because the taxpayers are not going support you co-opting
Re: (Score:2)
Many people will argue that piracy is acceptable and that the GPL should always be enforced.
Many people choose to be selectively outraged depending on whether a situation is in line with, or in conflict against, their own philosophical sensibilities. We see it with politics, laws, personal behavior, etc. all the time... so it’s not surprising we also observe it when it comes to intellectual property.
Re: (Score:2)
> If itâ(TM)s okay to violate Hollywood movie company copyrights (as is the prevailing view here)
Apples to Oranges comparison.
While I don't entirely buy it the point of the argument is this:
* No-one is price-gouging with Linux
* Sticking it to "The Man" is 1 of two tactics for over-priced regurgitated movies. (The other is to abstain.)
With Linux you _already_ have pretty generous terms.
If Hollywood accepted a "Pay-What-You-Want" model I think more people would respect their copyright. But instead
Re: (Score:2)
Same copyright scheme, same outcomes? (Score:2)
Licensing differences lead to radically different outcomes. Free software (not just the variants of the Linux kernel containing only free software) is more attractive because the effect of the license on the users. Hollywood movies are licensed restrictively even disallowing verbatim non-commercial sharing (in other words, treating friends
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, enforcement is too cheap if it's only a cost of doing business the next time around.
Re: (Score:3)
Fines and penalties aren't always about pure monetary gain. They are a means of punishment for wrongdoing and a way to dissuade others from engaging in the same behavior. Absent payment as a penalty, I suppose we could take the board of directors of a company found in violation of the GPL and have them shot.
Agreed. And in some of the cases the offender needs to be taught a lesson as they were flagrantly disregarding the GPL even after being warned repeatedly.
I have no problem "going light" on someone who makes an honest mistake, but there are a lot of dishonest nonmistakes that need to be handled a little heavier.
Re: (Score:2)
[Pandering to infringers of copyright in GPL works] is like Obama's executive-order immigration amnesty that should be unconstitutional.
If a child is kidnapped by his own parents and smuggled by his parents into the United States, what recourse ought the child to have?
True. don't need to comply until caught (Score:2)
True, payment can also be used to encourage compliance BEFORE getting caught. "If you don't comply from the start, you'll have to pay when you get caught", is one approach. It seem McHardy is seeking personal gain, though, based on his tactics of putting time pressure on them, etc.
There may be no right way to do it. Giving a warning and allowing them to come into compliance with no penalty makes sense if someone just goofed. On the other hand, a policy of always allowing 30 days to cure with penalty could
GPL is about user freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law says you can't make copies for another without permission.
The BSD license grants an exception to copyright, (like all distribution licenses for copyrighted works,) which lets you copy it, but also lets you take away that permission from whoever you distribute the software too.
The GPL license also grants an exception to copyright, but says you can't take it away from whoever you distribute the software too. In other words, they get the same right to run, modify, and distribute the software as the licensed work you based your changes upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Both largely give you the same rights over software already licensed under the terms of those licenses. They key difference is that the GPL gives you additional rights over any modifications made to the software provided those modifications have been distributed to anyone else.
You cannot take away rights to software with BSD license. You can only not give rights to modification of software that is licensed, and that is a reasonable compromise.
Re:GPL is about user freedom (Score:4)
The BSD license grants an exception to copyright, (like all distribution licenses for copyrighted works,) which lets you copy it, but also lets you take away that permission from whoever you distribute the software too.
I keep hearing this flawed argument every time this particular discussion comes around (every Saturday, it seems like). It surprises me people still fall for it. It's a fallacy, based on confusion between the code developed by the original publisher and the code developed by other people.
If party A releases some code under the BSD licence, party B can't take away party C's permission to use A's code. B has the freedom to distribute his code under any licence he feels like, but can't infringe C's freedom to use A's code any way C likes. By contrast, the GPL removes B's right to release his own code under whatever licence works best for him. Ironically, this restriction of B's rights is called "freedom" by GPL supporters, and the BSD licence that allows all rights *to A's code* is called "less free" than the GPL that allows fewer rights.
Re:GPL is about user freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
You sound like you've done your homework, so I have to give you credit for that.
However, you are mistaken when you say GPL removes B's right to distribute his own code - provided that code constitutes a derivative work, B never had the right to choose licensing for it. That stems from copyright law: the original author sets the terms for derivative works.
Re: (Score:2)
And A6 is the best version of all of them, and it's proprietary and can't be licensed except at considerable cost and a requirement of DRM on the software. B then throws a tantrum because B can't get the best versions without complying with licenses.
Seriously, B can use one of the permissively licensed versions or write his own (perhaps using one of the permissively licensed ones as a starting point). B doesn't have the right to whatever B wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is really a pedant point - I thought it was clear the whole discussion is about derivative code. Well, there's always somebody jumping in to kvetch that not all assumptions were clearly and separately stated at length.
Whether B has the right to choose his license is precisely the subject of the discussion, and the difference between BSD and GPL. You're wrong saying "B never had the right to choose licensing". He can choose licensing (of derivative code, see, I'm stating the assumption clearly) provide
Re: (Score:2)
There is no permission removed. But nobody is forced to permit distribution under the same license. Real freedom, both for developers and users.
In most cases it's advantageous to co-operate with other in developing the software but the BSD allows co-operation of some parts and private development of other parts. A choice in other words - freedom. And the user can choose to go with the software from a company that is based on BSD sourcecode or using the same original sourcecode.
You may think that users of op
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If your concern is maximum freedom for the developer, then yes. Pragmatically, though, there's a lot more potential developers with the GPL than with BSD/ISC/MIT licenses. Also, maximal freedom includes the freedom to not issue updates, for things like KRACK.
That's largely untrue. Most of what corporations do involve in
Re: (Score:2)
I think both BSD and GPL style licenses have their place in the world. A BSD-style license is useful for those who wish their code to be used as broadly as possible, whether by commercial or open source. A GPL license is appropriate for those who are first and foremost advocates of open source, and want maximum protection to ensure their code is only used in open source products.
This simply reflects a different intent or priorities of the authors. You hear slogans like "GPL is about user freedom", which
Re:I used to like the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
but switched over to be more in favour of the BSD/ISC/MIT licences because they are maximally free.
I take exception to that. The BSD and GPL are equally free, but they split on whom gets that freedom; one gives an extra freedom to the immediate developer to change the licensing, one gives extra freedom to the downstream developer by propagating all the freedoms onto to them.
Most people using BSD 'derived' code have none of the freedoms BSD offers. How exactly do you argue with a straight face that this is the better outcome?
More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
That amounts to the public paying for all the bakeries ingredients, and then the bakery sells bread back to the public. Yes, that's a pretty ideal system for the baker; not such a good deal for the public though. Why are they funding the baker's ingredients exactly?
If it were the GPL the baker would also have to share how the bread is made, and people wouldn't have to depend on him if they wanted to make their own bread. (This, according to you is the 'less free' option.)
Small wonder the baker prefers the BSD.
Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
Note that I don't contend the pragmatic arguments aren't real, just that they are deeply unsatisfying on a philosophical level. They point to difficult to solve problems with society itself, and rather than solve these difficult problems, the pragmatist just accepts them as unsolved and proceeds to go for lunch. That's not much of a solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Some developers simply will not license their software under the GPL.
And?
Using other licenses is therefore an excellent solution because it is the only way the software will be released at all.
What do I care if they release it or not?
Are you objecting to their right to release their own software under whatever license they see fit? I see no legal, ethical, or moral grounds to do so.
If they write it from scratch themselves they can do whatever they like. I didn't contribute to it. I didn't fund it. As long as I don't have to use it, they can do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
If software was developed using public funding and released under a BSD license, you have the right to use that software however you like.
Right up until someone else takes it, extends it a bit, changes the license, and I'm stuck using it. Its still 95%+ the publically funded software... with 0% of the rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming you developed all the code yourself from scratch then it has nothing to do with the BSD and GPL debate. Go nuts. It really has nothing to with the conversation though.
On the other hand if you developed it based on GPL then you are likely in violation of the license if you aren't making the source available.
If you developed it based on BSD code then you are within your rights...but your claim of 'building your own business and all the money generating assets in it' was pretty much bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the downstream developer has few freedoms. Sure they can modify the code and if that is all you care about then yes, it is a nice freedom
That's already one more freedom than the downstream developer who received "upstream its BSD but not anymore code"
But that developer has no freedom in choosing how they can redistribute the product of their work: that is decided for them by the GPL.
The downstream developer receiving relicensed BSD code has no right to modify OR redistribute. Yeah the GPL puts some restrictions their redistribution... to PRESERVE the right of redistribution further down the line.
The guy with re-licensed code based on BSD has no rights at all. The guy upstream stripped him of all his rights. He can't modify it, he can't fix it, and he can't redistribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Later on, a downstream developer cannot be "stripped" of rights he never had.
Is this the maximal freedom the BSD enables? Where a developer doesn't have to worry about losing any rights, because he never got them in the first place!
He does however have recourse to use the original version.
iOS is based on BSD. How much value is there in the 'recourse' to the 'original version'? Or a checkpoint firewall? Or a juniper device?
No rights to lose, because you don't have any to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people would say it's reasonably fair that the downstream developer only got the same rights to the BSD code that the first developer got. Just because someone gave another person a gift doesn't entitle you to a gift from the receiver.
Except that *I* might be the original developer, or the guy who paid the original developer. And all you did was take my 'gift' put on some wrapping paper and a bow, and then sell it back to me with all the rights I gave you stripped away.
The code I gave you had these rights attached, and the extended code you sent back me no longer has them. To say... they weren't 'stripped', just 'declined to be granted' is pointless sophistry.
Its legal and within the license, and its moral in the sense that I gave you pe
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for circling back to the very beginning of the discussion.
Most people don't know licensing. They choose the GPL or the BSD in many cases because they do *want* it to be 'free', and they don't really understand the difference. Then some twit comes along and sasy 'go BSD' its maximally free -- the GPL has restrictions.... so they follow that advice.
And then when they find someone put a nice bow on their 'free code' and is selling it for big money, they often say ... this isn't what i intended at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think developers don't understand the licensing they chose
In a lot of cases: yes.
It has nothing to do with my preference; lots of people, including developers don't really know the ins and outs of the GPL or BSD or the LGPL or GPLv3 vs v2, or AGPL, or MPL... why should anyone expect otherwise?
Beyond the very basics, this is a specialty for lawyers not developers. Why do you think the average developer knows this stuff inside out?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
That amounts to the public paying for all the bakeries ingredients, and then the bakery sells bread back to the public. Yes, that's a pretty ideal system for the baker; not such a good deal for the public though. Why are they funding the baker's ingredients exactly?
Exactly. I wonder how many of the academics choosing BSD like licences are later setting up businesses that use closed source derivatives of that code? That way, they can close the code, regardless of whether they personally hold the copyright or not, and including any outside contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux GPL enforces compatibility. Without the GPL Linux would fracture into hundreds of proprietary dialects like BSD has.
Re: Worried about BSD? (Score:1)
Yes there are many GNU/Linux distros, but they are binary compatible, while the BSDs are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes a considerable amount of their software available as Open Source. They most definitely do not believe that a walled garden is the only way to live. They do it because it makes them money.
MPAA's personal touch (Score:4, Insightful)
I think as Linux kernel developers we should take note of the very personal touch the MPAA has used to deal with violators: An early morning visit by a paramilitary police force.
Can influence the court vs his 0.1% contribution (Score:2)
Even in enforcing a license, a court must decide how exactly to do so. If monetary damages are appropriate, how much money exactly? A court should hear from the copyright holders and from the defendant before deciding on remedies.
As you said, there are many contributors to the kernel, and many contributors to netfilter. If the vast majority of copyright holders relevant copy right holders say "we just want them to start complying, we don't want any money other than expenses for this case", a court should
Re: (Score:2)
Once a prominent contributor takes a substantial stand against this additional permission, watch someone file issues to replace this contributor's contributions.
Re: (Score:1)
It would have to be a clean implementation of an interface that existed before the contribution that they mean to eliminate. Otherwise it's still a derived work and the contributor maintains control over it through the "viral" nature of the GPL. Anyone who has worked on the part to be eliminated need not apply: They're too likely to end up with a result that would not elminate the claim.
It's fascinating that major open source proponents are trying to make an end run around one of the most well-known open so
Not true. Cars not derived from horses. SCO Unix (Score:2)
"Replaces" does not mean "derived from". Cars replace horses. Cars are not derived from horses. More to the point, GPL Linux replaces Unix; Linux is not a derivative work of Unix.
SCO spent millions on lawyers arguing that Linux is a derivative work of Unix, which it replaces. Several courts ruled it is not. It's entirely possible to replace something without creating a derivative work.
> Anyone who has worked on the part to be eliminated need not apply
Partially true. Someone who really knows the old c
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess we're going to see yet another different network package management system in Linux soon?
Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding what you mean by "network package management system":
A package management system is an independent process in user space. The only Linux interfaces on which APT or DNF relies are the syscall interfaces, which were already subject to an additional permission.
Complete and Total Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a corporate push to protect corporate interests while they violate the GPL. The monetary findings that punish companies are so rare that there is no problem here at all. Liars working for moneyed interests.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a grey area around things like the NVIDIA blobs and other "binary kernel modules". But when companies refuse to even try to comply with the GPL and share the kernel source for their device, there is no "grey area", its just as much of a copyright violation as it is when someone shares an illegal copy of the latest Star Wars film.
Its the same when someone distributes a kernel module or changes and has based it on existing GPL code (e.g. when Samsung distributed kernels for some of their phones but d
Kinsella (Score:1)
Copyright law is a joke and has functionally destroyed or delayed unfathomable levels of productive economic activity.
The Linux Foundation needs to bring in Stephan Kinsella on retainer to help with this. Probably no one else has done as much legal-philosophical work into the nature and practice of modern IP as he has.
41121? (Score:3)
Background: McHardy enforcing the GPL in Germany (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, a few years ago, some Linux developer named McHardy started enforcing the GPL in Germany on his own. See e.g. the background article at https://sfconservancy.org/blog... [sfconservancy.org]
It looks like he tends to sue GPL-violators for about 2000€ + his costs (attorny fees for trying to settle out of court, costs for reverse engineering):
Example where he successfully sued the Germany subsidy of a Taiwanese hardware manufacturer for a total of about 2900€: LG Frankfurt, 2-6 O 224/06 http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/do... [www.jbb.de]
However, there was also a case where he demanded and got more: A GPL-violator that he had contacted in 2010, and got to comply with the GPL out of court back then became a repeat offender in 2012. He sued them for for 5000€ + attorny fees of 2000€: LG Hamburg, 308 O 10/13 http://www.damm-it-recht.de/lg... [damm-it-recht.de]
On the other hand, most Linux developers apparently think that free software developers and organizations tasked with GPL enforcement should not profit from suing GPL violators. The Software Freedom Conservancy is losing money from enforcing the GPL, and asks for donations to be able to continue their work.
Philipp