License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 11, 2011 2:17 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)
In reply to: License Hostage-Taking by flewellyn
Parent article: FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon (LinuxInsider)

First of all, I would respect them for saying what you mentioned at the end there. I haven't seen them say exactly that, but maybe you can point me to a clearer statement than the ones I have seen?

But in any case what I have a problem with is something much more serious. What I would *like* to hear from them is this:

> "It has come to our attention that there is an alternative interpretation of the GPL2, where your rights are permanently terminated upon violation of the terms. This was not our intent when we wrote that license, nor we believe it to have been the intent of the many developers who released their source code under that license, and we believe it is simply a misreading of the license. We have also never enforced the GPL2 on code whose copyright we own in that way: When we approached a party that was in violation, we never implied their license was permanently terminated until they dealt with us - we always assumed they would get a new license automatically at the time where they came into compliance. So we believe there is no reasonable way to interpret the GPL2 in that manner. In any event, to prevent any possible misunderstandings we have clarified this in the GPL3."

But recent reports appear to indicate that the FSF has in fact enforced the GPL under the terminating interpretation (for example, B. Kuhn who was executive director of the FSF says this: https://identi.ca/conversation/79422867 ). Please tell me that isn't so and that I have misunderstood - I really hope I am wrong here.

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 11, 2011 2:32 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

>First of all, I would respect them for saying what you mentioned at the end there. I haven't seen them say exactly that, but maybe you can point me to a clearer statement than the ones I have seen?

The second article in the series linked in this very article has an example of exactly that.

I think the distinction you are drawing, however, is a distinction without a difference. When the FSF enforces GPL against someone for GPLed software on which they hold copyright, they say "You must do XYZ to be in compliance. When you do so, we will consider your license restored." Thus, BY MEANS OF coming back into compliance, the license is restored because that is the expressly stated intention of the FSF.

If the FSF did not explicitly say as much, then technically, the person or entity that returns to compliance has not formally had their license restored. However, in such a case where a party rectified a violation of the GPL and then continued to distribute GPLed software (correctly, and in compliance with the license) without an explicit regranting of the license, the FSF would undoubtedly say, if asked, "Yes, they're in compliance, so we consider them to have a license." And any reasonable judge would agree.

The law is not interpreted by computers, you see, but by humans. And humans would say "Yes, the clear intent here is to restore the grant of license if they rectify noncompliance issues."

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 11, 2011 3:44 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link]

I do see it as a very significant distinction that the FSF has apparently been enforcing the GPL along the lines of the termination distinction. You may be right that a courtroom would rule by common sense, so the intent is crucial and so forth, but lawsuits are risky. The FSF's actions have lent credibility to an interpretation that threatens the open source community.

Again, I hope I am wrong and I would welcome a clear statement from them on their past enforcement actions.

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 11, 2011 22:44 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (4 responses)

One big problem with that WRT Android is that Linux' copyright isn't FSF's, so in principle somebody with this wacky interpretation of GPLv2 could still make trouble, even if the FSF states their intent as you say. And it sure is troubling that the FSF is essentially saying they are prepared to back up such nonsense to further GPLv3.

What would be needed is a sort of sane GPLv2.1, i.e., GPLv2 cleaned up and with such corner cases clarified instead of all the new restrictions they added in GPLv3.

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 12, 2011 6:49 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

only the FSF can release a new version of the GPL, and they have no interest in such a 'sleaned up' GPLv2

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 12, 2011 6:55 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (2 responses)

Only the FSF might be able to introduce GPL 2.1, but anyone could clean up the GNU GPL v2 and publish it as a OSI license (the "what the GPLv2 should have looked like" license). I bet it would become reasonably popular.

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 12, 2011 9:10 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Since GPLv2 is a copyrighted work offered with no licence that would allow someone else to "clean it up", they'd actually have to write a new licence that offers the same things. There are other copyleft licences, but when people start to write their own, they usually introduce their own favourite features, leading to incompatibilities with the GPL and other licences.

License Hostage-Taking

Posted Sep 12, 2011 15:15 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Only the FSF can produce a license that fulfills "or later" clauses and they seem utterly uninterested in cleaning up GPLv2. Alas.

I'll definitely take the under on your bet.