Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 21:17 UTC (Tue) by wookey (guest, #5501)
In reply to: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement by tbird20d
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Tim (and Rob), thanks for that clarification of the why's and wherefores.

I guess the underlying problem here is that Free Software people are royally fed up of peristent failure to ship sources for hundreds, probably thousands of products over the last decade. The reasons for this are usually little to do with whoever is selling you the box but some board/chip/subsystem supplier/ODM back down the supply chain. This does make it extremely difficult for the seller to fix things retrospectively.

And it is no doubt very annoying to some corp/company to be told that money will not fix the problem, only software they don't have will.

On the other hand I can see why SFC want audit rights in an attempt to reduce the whack-a-mole nature of the problem and force suppliers to actually fix the supply chain issues by putting proper processes in place.

A great deal of distrust and frustration is being built up by the continued failure to fix the problem. And there is a mutual lack of understanding between the more uncompromising types on both sides.

I don't personally have enough to do with the supply chain to understand why it's so hard to fix, but it does seem that trying to fix it by enforcement at the top end is making BSD licenced code increasingly popular. I'm not sure that's a great outcome.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 22:55 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] (6 responses)

> I guess the underlying problem here is that Free Software
> people are royally fed up of peristent failure to ship
> sources for hundreds, probably thousands of products
> over the last decade.

Then they can do their own enforcement action and stop complaining about me rendering the one I started irrelevant.

> On the other hand I can see why SFC want audit rights
> in an attempt to reduce the whack-a-mole nature of the problem

In the name of freedom, we must have a court-imposed compilance officer as a full-time permanent position.

What was that line about redoubling your efforts after losing sight of your goals?

Rob

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 0:08 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (2 responses)

A company doesn't have to settle and deal with the settlement terms the SFC imposes (compliance officer and all). They could instead choose to go to court, and deal with the legal penalties of copyright infringement. Oddly, nobody ever seems to do that. Presumably, they consider the settlement less onerous to deal with.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 1:16 UTC (Wed) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] (1 responses)

SCO never had a leg to stand on. They were a tiny little nobody that picked a fight with one of the most competent legal teams on the planet based on smoke and mirrors and bluster and bluffing.

The case dragged on for _seven_years_.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 2:20 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

Like I said, presumably the companies violating the GPL considered a settlement less onerous to deal with. Precisely what makes it so effective to require compliance with other GPL licenses at the same time.

Also, SCO had a vested interest in dragging the lawsuits out as long as possible, because they had no hope of winning but they could keep FUDding and extorting as long as the lawsuit continued. By contrast, those enforcing the GPL just want companies to come into compliance, and they don't seem to have any problem with that occurring quickly and quietly. Also, unlike SCO, the companies enforcing the GPL actually have a case, and a fairly open-and-shut one at that.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 1:19 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

Then they can do their own enforcement action and stop complaining about me rendering the one I started irrelevant.

There is this saying in the English Language that goes: Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on me.

If a company is unable and unwilling to fix compliance issues with past GPL violations why on earth should they be trusted to follow the license the second, third or forth time around. All this supplier discussion is just a red herring. Companies have the ability to force their suppliers to comply, through contract language, future contracts and just cutting a check to the former supplier. If CISCO of all companies (was at one time the largest company by market capitalization in the world) is unwilling to spend the time and money it takes to comply not only with future but past distribution why on earth should they be allowed to get away with it? They fooled us once.

In the name of freedom, we must have a court-imposed compilance officer as a full-time permanent position.

Much like a Felon is required to see a parole officer, a proven license violator should have to submit to periodic reviews for a period of time to prove that their past violations are behind them.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 3:43 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

Sigh, I missed an error that makes the first sentence meaningless.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 9:54 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]

"In the name of freedom, we must have a court-imposed compilance officer as a full-time permanent position."

Only if you're a company that has already proven it is incapable of complying (or unwilling to comply) by your own means.