The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
Posted Sep 12, 2016 15:04 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)In reply to: The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by neilbrown
Parent article: The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The US typically asks for damages for past transgressions. The EU typically seeks to enforce future compliance. Which jurisdiction is most likely to get the source for you?
Cheers,
Wol
Posted Sep 12, 2016 17:17 UTC (Mon)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (9 responses)
EU would probably have to wield a bigger hammer and end up having to do a complete product line ban from manufactures that are discovered doing so for *any* of it's products, from iot,mobile devices to tv's, dishwashers, refrigerators etc they all get banned until they comply with the one(s) that did not and arguably the same thing should apply for all devices that do not receive software updates ( open as well as closed ) in timely manner be it iot devices and or mobile devices that can be used for doing payments in one form or another etc.
And then there is that evolution that the consumer no longer actually owns any devices he purchases, which btw he is completely unaware of since no sales person is mentioning that fact or he might have relinquished his ownership through a simple gesture on that devices you know the classic "If you continue to use <insert product or application web sites, changes to terms in your bank, on loans, insurance etc> you acknowledge an apply our new means of fubar-ing you" which may include an hidden fine print in which the consumer relinquishes all rights in claiming any code or make the manufacturer liable in any shape or form...
Posted Sep 12, 2016 18:28 UTC (Mon)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 12, 2016 19:18 UTC (Mon)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
In anycase we live in a world driven by greed and as such the solution is something that either increases or decreases the profit margin of the individual or corporate in question so if license B is more profitable than license A they will use that instead. It's as simple as that. In the end of the day what is effectively being discussed is how much enforcement can be put on the gpl before it becomes a negative value for companies in which the answer to that is none. . .
Posted Sep 12, 2016 19:01 UTC (Mon)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (5 responses)
Three things come into play:
These three between them mean that if you can get the EU to take action, business will listen.
Posted Sep 12, 2016 21:13 UTC (Mon)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (2 responses)
Or lobby for a trade agreement where they can sue for lost profits based on laws passed in countries (cf. cigarette manufacturers suing Australia over the generic packaging laws).
Posted Sep 12, 2016 21:17 UTC (Mon)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (1 responses)
Seems to have ended OK though (not the best outcome: tossed on procedural grounds rather than actual arguments, but better than the reverse) http://www.mccabecentre.org/focus-areas/tobacco/philip-mo...
Posted Sep 14, 2016 7:56 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
I think that's the best outcome possible - the "procedural grounds" were that Philip Morris had no standing to bring such a case, and that it was an abuse of the process for Philip Morris to attempt to rearrange its affairs specifically to allow one component of the firm to bring such a case.
The point of ISDS arbitration (which this was) is to provide a venue for companies to deal with capricious behaviour by states they've invested in (e.g. sell you permits to drill for oil, the moment you find oil, confiscate the oil wells), not to prevent states from doing anything that might reduce profits. In this case, PM was told that they were abusing the process by filing for compensation, because they had plenty of warning that such behaviour by Australia was expected, and they indeed restructured before plain packaging came in with a view to meeting the requirements the treaty sets out for ISDS - thus proving that this wasn't unexpected or unpredictable, but was in fact a normal business risk.
Posted Sep 13, 2016 15:13 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Even if you make me aware of them, if they're that sort of clause then they're probably illegal. Many rights CAN'T be signed away, and especially if I'm a consumer the law assumes that the supplier has complete knowledge (fit for purpose rules), and disproportionate power (they aren't allowed to do arm-twisting).
A judge is likely to say "are you having a giraffe?", and declare the clauses (and quite possibly the contract) void without giving it much thought at all.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 14, 2016 8:33 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
Depends in great detail on the right in question; most rights of a purchaser can be signed away, as long as you the consumer are giving informed agreement to the signing away of the right in question. The hard part is getting that informed agreement - to successfully get a consumer to sign away some of the stickier rights, you must spend quite a lot of effort telling the consumer that they're not getting what they want. For example, to sign away the right to a functioning product, you must ensure that the consumer knows that the product is not useful for the purposes they have in mind, and that you don't believe it's possible for the consumer to make it useful (but, on the other hand, this is how you can sell a faulty car to a consumer who just wants it for scrap value - as long as you're honest about what parts you've removed, you can sell a car saying "engine's bust and I don't know why - it started giving out black smoke and not making power. I've not taken any parts off the car, but I don't believe it's economically repairable; at the very least, it needs a new engine").
Posted Sep 13, 2016 15:05 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing the EU would do! If a manufacturer is shown to be flouting copyright they will be told "don't do it again!". And if they do, the flouting devices will be banned (which probably the manufacturer has discontinued, so they'll laugh at that). Except that next time, they will be told "You want an import licence? *Prove* you've complied, and then we'll get round to doing the paperwork!". OOOPPPSSS. Their competitor has just nicked the market from them ...
And it's stupid! All they've got to do is a "toss the code over the wall" dump and they've complied! And as for shipping compliant devices only to the EU, it's probably more hassle than it's worth to not comply for elsewhere, especially the States, because they'll suddenly find the Americans saying "if you can do it for Europe, why can't you do it for the US?".
And as for "we keep changing the code in the devices we ship", then just make your code change procedure including dumping the build environment every time you make a release. If that means a load of code ends up over the wall that never actually makes it into a device, so what.
Cheers,
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
If you need an recent simpler sample the non availability of LG V20 in EU at an time they could overtake Samsung in that same region since Samsung is in serious damage control with note 7.
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
Wol
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement
Wol