Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards [LWN.net]

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 28, 2017 16:43 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Parent article: Patrick McHardy and copyright profiteering (Opensource.com)

This matter might be confusing to a lot of people.

Mr. McHardy is behaving as the law allows and exactly as most proprietary software companies would operate if faced with infringement. While we don't like it, he has a right to do what he's doing.

Our community's standards are higher than the norm. We forego damages for past infringement, settling for nothing more than present compliance. This is a voluntary practice and nothing in our licenses, even the FSF-created ones, compels us to behave this way. In general it is to our strategic advantage to work this way, since our goal is not money but a well-functioning Free Software ecology.

We should also be aware that FSF itself has departed from the community standards for enforcement, once with Cisco Systems. The offense was sufficiently egregious, Cisco conducted themselves offensively when people (including me) reached out to help them, and FSF's use of the collected damages (if the amount and purpose was reported to me accurately) was laudable.

to post comments

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 29, 2017 6:09 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> We should also be aware that FSF itself has departed from the community standards for enforcement, once with Cisco Systems. The offense was sufficiently egregious, Cisco conducted themselves offensively when people (including me) reached out to help them, and FSF's use of the collected damages (if the amount and purpose was reported to me accurately) was laudable.

Not that I have a clue what happens, but your simple statement "Cisco conducted themselves offensively" is enough to say to me that what the FSF presumably did was both justified and acceptable. Even under community standards!

Bringing Christianity into it, if you actually read the Bible (which many people quote without understanding), Christianity is both harsh and forgiving. Community members are expected to live up to the community standards. Punishment can be severe. Cisco were pretending to be a member of the community.

Read up and *understand* excommunication and its (ab)use in the middle ages.

(Going back to McHardy, he is applying the rules, in all their brutal force, to people who are not traditionally part of the community and understand neither the rules nor their impact. Even worse, they are the sort of people who would gladly comply (and thereby fall under the forgiveness umbrella) but he is not giving them the opportunity).

Cheers,
Wol

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 29, 2017 21:07 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Having learned from bitter experience in another community.... There is only so much tolerance one should show to those members of a community who have disdain for its norms, and who keep pushing at its boundaries.

Also, with regard to Cisco, it is notorious for fostering a cut-throat, aggressive, internal corporate culture (through banded stack-and-yank that pits colleagues against each other). They're notorious for competing aggressively. They're notorious for aggressive politics at standards bodies. I've observed ex-Cisco employees being much more aggressively political when participating in open-source communities than was otherwise the norm.

Aggression is a feature of that company, and those who come out of it, it seems to me.

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 29, 2017 17:03 UTC (Tue) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] (4 responses)

Bruce Perens wrote:

We should also be aware that FSF itself has departed from the community standards for enforcement

Bruce, please don't make such accusations without citing any actual facts. Indeed, your comments are attacking a cartoon version of the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement (which, BTW, the FSF co-drafted and co-published with Conservancy). The Principles do not say the things your post above says. The relevant point about receiving funds about putting compliance ahead of any monetary damages. Also, when charities like Conservancy and FSF do enforcement, you can see the full details of the funds on their 990s, which adds transparency.

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 30, 2017 17:43 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

Bruce, please don't make such accusations without citing any actual facts.

How can I cite facts, Bradley? You have them and the community doesn't. I only have what official people have previously explained to me. Obviously, Bradley, you do have access to those facts, although you may be bound by court order not to release them. I believe the acceptance of seals on enforcement case documents as part of a settlement, preventing visibility to the community, is itself a departure from community standards. When enforcement is over, we should be able to see what was done. Note that Jacobsen accepted a smaller financial settlement in favor of allowing sunshine upon his case.

Also, look again before you accuse me of attacking anything, please. I am not at all attacking the community standards by saying they are higher than the norm and I don't undertstand how you came to that conclusion.

If you are saying that McHardy does not have a right to enforce as he has been, I would like to hear your rationale.

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 30, 2017 18:23 UTC (Wed) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

Bruce and I just talked about on the phone about this, but the facts are public on Conservancy's and FSF's website and I told Bruce where to find them.

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Aug 30, 2017 18:34 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

I did the old-fashioned thing and called Bradley on the phone.

I overstated that FSF foregoes monetary settlement in favor of present compliance. They prioritize compliance over money.

As an aside, I am operating under an "I don't want your money" rule in my own enforcement, at least with companies that are willing to comply rather than go to court (which has been everyone so far).

There has been essentially no case law, their completed enforcement, with the exception of a defendant who went bankrupt and stopped responding, has been settlement rather than court ruling. Settlements are often sealed because the defendant will accept nothing else. Bradley agreed with my bemoaning the absence of case law. I remain uncomfortable that settlements are sealed and believe the community has a right to know. In some cases, this is regarding works in which I have authorship.

Bradley thinks I am off base on FSF v. Cisco but doesn't have the figures and claims that some people in responsible positions at the time might have misstated.. I will have to go through FSF's form 990 for that year.

Normal Behavior vs. Our Higher Standards

Posted Sep 4, 2017 20:58 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link]

Thanks for sharing guys! Your conversation was interesting ;-)