Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

Posted Jul 2, 2021 23:32 UTC (Fri) by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
In reply to: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights by fredrik
Parent article: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights

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.