|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 1, 2021 21:48 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
In reply to: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights by madscientist
Parent article: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

I don't think the statistics, when so heavily anonymized, would really give a clear picture. I can't speak for other orgs that purport to do enforcement, but with Conservancy (who currently does GPL enforcement for BusyBox, Debian, Inkscape, Linux, and Samba), we decided to just annually report how much of our resources (staff time, legal fees) are spent on license compliance and enforcement. However, given that the grant is relatively recent, I want to point out that the big news for Conservancy's enforcement is we now have a large grant to work on GPL enforcement which has allowed us to increase our work on enforcement substantially: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement...

I also generally think giving a sense of how much time is spent by the org and explaining the strategy is more important and useful than raw numbers of violation reports and open matters and closed matters. The most important reason for that is that often, a single large successful enforcement action against a powerful company, or a lawsuit, quickly changes behavior of many other companies in a period of just a few months. To use an example that's old enough that it's easy to talk about the details: So, if you look back to the history of enforcement (let's consider the BusyBox enforcement in the late 2000s that Conservancy did), I suspect you'd see a huge spike in violation reports over a period of 2004-2008, yielding 100s of active reports, but Conservancy was at the time working on only about 15-20 of those matters. Then we filed the lawsuit, and then we saw lots of really good compliance come about, even among companies that weren't sued (because they realized the stakes were real and didn't want to be sued next). So, if you read a stats snapshot that right before Conservancy's lawsuit in early 2009, you'd see hundreds of pending violation reports and Conservancy working only 17 of them. You'd probably have said seeing those numbers at that time that we were doing a bad job! But, we were carefully curating a list of defendants that were the right mix to file the suit, which we then leveraged to assure others who weren't sued came into compliance.

It's no secret that GPL enforcement is grossly underfunded, and that means leverage must be used to assure compliance. If we had 10x the resources for enforcement, absolutely there are other great strategies that would be possible.


to post comments

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 0:52 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

I too would like to see some sort of picture painted of the FLOSS license violations landscape; which projects are violated most frequently, which device/distro categories the violations are mostly from, which licenses are violated most frequently, which industries are the companies mostly from etc.

For the violations I have seen, there have been both BSD and GPL violations, on Linux based routers, mostly violating Linux/busybox/samba. In addition, during my work on the Debian derivatives census I saw violations on the entirety of a typical Debian based distribution.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 8:16 UTC (Fri) by fredrik (subscriber, #232) [Link] (8 responses)

An argument for reporting numbers is publicity. I can recall reading about at most a handful of individual FLOSS license violations per year. When I see bkuhn referring to hundreds of violations it is apparent that I have severely underestimated the scale of the problem so far.

Granted, funding for copyright violations may primarily come from grants from organizations who are better informed. Still, publicity drives awareness.

So, here's another vote for collecting and regularly publishing reports about the number of violations found overall. Isn't that something the SF Conservancy could do? Add to that the number of hours/staff spent by the Conservancy during that period and you'd have something newsworthy enough for a spot on the LWN feed, at least on a quarterly basis.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 23:32 UTC (Fri) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link] (4 responses)

I’m pretty sure the number of violations for linux & glibc are at least in the thousands, but who has the time, experience & other resources to investigate every linux-based device on the market…?

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 3, 2021 9:09 UTC (Sat) by fredrik (subscriber, #232) [Link]

I imagine that a decent start is to collect stats based on incidents others already report spontaneously to the Conservancy or they otherwise are made aware of. Rather than relying only on very time internal investigations and exploratory work.

Still, I agree that collecting and publishing the data may consume precious time for the Conservancy. On the other hand, whoever does it would have to have some level of both credibility and notability, otherwise the work may not be known and few will provide those necessary external incident reports. A bit of chicken and egg problem.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 3, 2021 16:58 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

> who has the time, experience & other resources to investigate every linux-based device on the market…?

A regular count of "incidents we couldn't pursue due to lack of money/staffing/other" would be interesting to find interested in donating but unsure of the impact is their donations.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 7, 2021 18:01 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]

The ones I was talking about were those that never even made it to being an incident, because nobody ever went looking for compliance. Which is almost certainly the majority of all devices out there.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 15, 2021 22:20 UTC (Thu) by mrugiero (guest, #153040) [Link]

A prior employer violated both Linux's and Qt's license. For obvious reasons I can't disclose who, but even if I did, it's a small company in my country that nobody cares about, so it wouldn't change a thing :shrug:
FWIW, they didn't do it out of greed or anything, it just wasn't worth it because the application was to niche and the clients non-technical: the modified code wouldn't have been of any use to anyone outside the company.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 3, 2021 2:15 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

The musicpd author definitely emails (emailed?) companies that are in violation of the GPL. I don't know if any of them ever go to court though. Alas, the mailing list seems to have been lost to the aether and mpd has since moved to phpBB and GitHub, so I can't link to threads nor do Message-Ids for threads I have appear in the big search engines :/ . Maybe gmane has it perchance?

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:44 UTC (Sun) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (1 responses)

The Wikipedia page for Message-ID links to various mailing list archives that have Message-ID searching, maybe one of them has archived the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message-ID

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:57 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Ah, yep. Thanks. `mail-archive` has the public bits of these communications for anyone curious: https://www.mail-archive.com/mpd-devel@musicpd.org/

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 22:45 UTC (Fri) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link] (3 responses)

I can easily imagine GPL violations of BusyBox, Samba by various embedded distributors, but Inkscape? How can one abuse Inkscape? The program is commercially so hopelessly unmarketable that rebranded Inkscape sold under different name looks to me like so pathetic effort that I would cry over the poor sod who tried it. (That doesn't mean that Inkscape is not very good program, but I cannot imagine anybody selling it).

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 23:29 UTC (Fri) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]

They wouldn’t have to redistribute the whole program to be in violation. I’m sure there is interesting code that can be used elsewhere in various parts of it.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 3, 2021 0:48 UTC (Sat) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

ISTR reading that various scammers redistribute Inkscape for money (or maybe it was GIMP or Krita) and have had trademark enforcement against them. Definitely Firefox has this issue. I can't find any references though.

Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 17, 2021 12:27 UTC (Sat) by fgrosshans (guest, #35486) [Link]

They don't need to actually sell it. Just redistribute the programme with spyware/malware maybe enough to gather some profit


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds