Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Posted Jul 3, 2021 0:01 UTC (Sat) by pabs (subscriber, #43278)In reply to: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights by khim
Parent article: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
The primary goal of their enforcement is to bring compliance, once that is achieved it does not does not serve the FLOSS community to permanently punish an organisation that has started on the path towards becoming a positive part of the community, contributing upstream, sponsoring development, conferences etc.
A threat of that as a tactic within a last-resort lawsuit, maybe, but actually doing that to an organisation that has got the message and come into compliance seems heavy-handed, unethical and also probably strategically suboptimal.
Posted Jul 3, 2021 9:41 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (25 responses)
In that case passing copyright to it makes no sense. If that's true then GPL is dead and we should stop pretending otherwise. The whole GNU story started with the infamous debacle about the printer driver. Remember? The one, where Stallman couldn't fix the bug. If company is a positive part of the community, contributing upstream, sponsoring development, conferences… yet sells devices without accompanying sources… then what's the point? Android with permissive licensing works just as well. LLVM with permissive sources also have paid developers and conferences. Depending on your goals, I guess. If your goals are “conferences” and it's perfectly Ok to flaunt decades of violations if you sponsor these then not only GPL but also a copyright assignment are superfluous. Once upon time FSF was very proud when it got G++ front-end. Today FSF ignores violations by vendors which violate GPL to keep information about their products secret (like MCST). Essentially the same thung AFAICS. If that's “fine” and “not a big deal”, then why do we need GPL, FSF, copyright assignments and all that circus?
Posted Jul 3, 2021 18:36 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (24 responses)
Please re-read the post you replied to. ESPECIALLY the bit you quoted. The GPL is the stick that forces the company into compliance. Find a *bad* company, use the GPL to beat it over the head with and persuade it to *become* a good company, and then yes you do want to say "fine, all is forgiven".
If a company says "up yours!", then they deserve all they get, and their GPL licence will be revoked - by their own actions! Hell is the inevitable consequence of your own selfish actions, and you condemn yourself. It's not our place to condemn them - we will condemn ourselves too. But if that is their choice, then we cannot save them, and shouldn't bother trying.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 3, 2021 18:57 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (23 responses)
Let's consider a very concrete example. Here is the company which sells GPL software with FSF copyright and without sources. For more than five years. They talk about maybe making sources available, but claim they couldn't do that because of secrecy (they are providing binaries to Russian government and fear source may contain some secrets which they couldn't reveal). Now, you say that they license is “revoked - by their own actions”… but what does that mean? So they can still sell all the FSF-copyrighted goodies but now should feel bad about themselves? Is that it? What an achievement! How can you be sure they would even feel bad about it? Seriously? You mean: the whole hoopla, the whole debacle about GPL and all that… and the real goal is just to make some “bad people” to treat GPL as if it were BSD license and wait till God would do something about them? Sorry, but I'm not sure it would really work in a real world.
Posted Jul 3, 2021 23:48 UTC (Sat)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (22 responses)
If you have concrete evidence of violations by a particular company, please report them to the appropriate parties.
Please donate to FSF or Conservancy, earmarked for compliance actions. At least Conservancy has been willing to bring lawsuits in the USA in the past and they have plans to do that again in the future, within the IoT firmware space:
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-li...
I'm not aware of any organisation doing GPL enforcement actions in Russia, is there a local Free Software organisation (like FSFE/FSFLA) in Russia?
Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:06 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (21 responses)
In XXX century, I assume? Would interview where marketing director quite explicitly says “source codes for the company's products are not yet available either for independent download or upon request, but the company intends to open them soon” (that's for something that they offered as binaries for five years at this point) count? Two years more passed after that interview, BTW. They still offer no sources AFAIK. I don't know, really. I have come to accept the fact that GPL just doesn't work and that's it. Just kinda found it funny to discuss how is it great to give FSF the right to enforce GPL when it clearly doesn't work.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:28 UTC (Sun)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (19 responses)
That interview does sound problematic. The usual standard of evidence is that a person who was able to receive the binaries, tried to receive the complete corresponding source, build and install it but was not able to do so. Then that person documents what happened and presents it as evidence.
The GPL works, but only if (as Bradley points out in the essay) it is actively enforced against violators:
> Copyleft licenses are not magic pixie dust. Copyleft is not a legislatively-mandated regulation (e.g., pollution regulations) — which are enforced by government staff. Ultimately, an entity — most commonly the copyright holders themselves — must proactively enforce GPL. This entity can be an organization, an individual, a group of individuals, a group of organizations, or a mix of all of those. Someone must enforce the rules; so-called “spontaneous compliance” is a myth promulgated by those who oppose copyleft.
I too would like to see the FSF, Conservancy and other Free Software copyright holders do more enforcement actions, but I don't have the revenue stream to back up my desires.
So if you want more enforcement, make copyright holders aware of violations, convince them that enforcement is needed, ensure that they have enough resources to bring enforcement actions and encourage them to pursue legal action, as a last resort.
The relative lack of enforcement actions is down to two things:
The number of Free Software copyright holders that agree that enforcement actions are appropriate. As well as the ostensibly Free Software companies that Conservancy highlights in the essay, there are unfortunately parts of the Linux kernel community that do not agree with enforcement actions.
The human and financial resources that those copyright holders have and their prioritisation of those resources towards enforcement actions. FSF/Conservancy do not have much of either of these and most individual developers probably don't have enough time/money to bring cases.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:45 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (5 responses)
If that's the case and enforcement doesn't work today, then where the assertion that continuing on that course would bring substantially different results in the future? The whole story about lack of funds for enforcement process is also quite laughable. If music industry can ask for $62,500 for a single downloaded song then why FSF or Conservancy couldn't do the same? Believe me, if you would actually squeeze similar sum from violators you would be able to afford to hire lots of lawyers. Because they want to be perceived as “nice guys”? Well, then just admit that GPL wouldn't work and stop using it. At some point you have to decide what you want to do. Yes, many groups (including GCC and others) want to drop copyright assignments and yes, this would make enforcement much harder, but the rationale is obvious: currently enforcement doesn't really work anyway — so why bother continuing with that circus which is supposed to help it?
Posted Jul 4, 2021 1:00 UTC (Sun)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 4, 2021 13:25 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Seriously? Why? Have they actually tried to squeeze money from the copyright violators? Patrick McHardy was quite efficient at doing that — and he only owns a bit of Linux, not that much. FSF owns copyright for everything in some products. Note that, technically speaking, to become “fully compliant” violators have to find and present sources for all versions of all FSF-owned GPL software they have ever shipped. For most of them it's just not possible: they couldn't provide sources because they don't have them and companies which provided binaries no longer exist. For most of them it's still a huge hassle, even if it's technically possible. Paying certain sum for every known violation would just be easier and cheaper for them. And if the number of violations is measured in thousands (which is probably true) then this activity should be able to pay for itself. Technically yes, but many companies which assault torrent users in Germany and elsewhere actually pay for that privilege. With penalties for a single willful copyright violation measured in thousands of dollars that's not very hard. Kinda. With all copyrights passed to FSF copyright enforcement should be easier (that's what article which we are discussing here claims and that's true), but, in turn, FSF becomes the only entity which may do that. If it's still not done, then… why spend so much effort doing the hassle of copyright assignments and everything else?
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:00 UTC (Mon)
by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
[Link] (2 responses)
Conservancy has spent substantial time and resources over the last five years working and considering every possible approach to improve the efficacy of copyleft enforcement. We have some ideas, and we're working to execute on them. The grant from ARDC talked about on our website allowed us to dig in our ideas and get seriously started, but it's just a start. See https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/oct/01/new-copyleft-s... for more details.
> If music industry can ask for $62,500 for a single downloaded song then why FSF or Conservancy couldn't do the same? Believe me, if you would actually squeeze similar sum from violators you would be able to afford to hire lots of lawyers.
I mean this respectfully, but I must be frank: that's a naïve prima facie analysis. If you'd like to dig deeper, definitely research the questions about statutory and actual damages under copyright law, and you may want to look at the dockets in Conservancy's 2009-era BusyBox cases to understand how this plays out in a “real world” copyright infringement case.
The funding problem for enforcement is huge; doubly so when not only is it hard to fund enforcement (as pabs has talked about in many of his replies in this comment thread), but *also* we have rather aggressive anti-enforcement work being funded to create FUD and political barriers to further enforcement action.
To be frank on another part of this that I've observed from the front lines: The FSF has historically avoided the “hard cases”, seeking to work on easier violations that are quickly resolved and they ignore violation reports (admittedly, that usually come from me personally) where companies are intransigent, which in my view are where the rubber meets the road with GPL. The true value of GPL will historically be judged by whether we were able to succeed in achieving compliance in the cases where violators purposely ignored their GPL obligations for a business advantage. At this point in my personal GPL enforcement career, I am really only interested in those violation cases because those being addressed and resolved will show the GPL has the appropriate power to assure software freedom and rights in cases where companies plot to take them away.
> Patrick McHardy was quite efficient at doing that — and he only owns a bit of Linux, not that much.
First of all, Patrick's “successes” have been grossly exaggerated by those who wish to portray enforcement as a huge threat to FOSS business. The main political use of Patrick's behavior has been to rally companies to oppose enforcement by reputable organizations like Conservancy, so it's in their interest to exaggerate how much money has actually flowed to Patrick. Second, note that Patrick makes absolutely no effort (that I am aware of) to get either injunction or compliance from violators (the two things that help/protect downstream users). What Patrick tries to do is catch small companies in violation, quickly get them to agree to a settlement agreement that creates a regular revenue stream if they continue to not comply, and then he collects regular payments. In other words, because of some weird quirks in the German legal system, he's been able to turn his relatively small amount of Linux copyright holdings into a passive revenue stream from some small companies who will never comply with GPL. (Big companies fought him and court and beat him, so only small companies actually ended up paying him.) I find that abhorrent and corrupt. I'd never recommend a legitimate FOSS organization take that tact, *even if* their stated goal was to roll that money into more useful enforcement. I don't believe the end justify the means.
> in “how many useful lines of source code have we got in the end”?
Rob just had this wrong, and Rob ultimately agreed with me that he (and some Linux upstream developers) had a different goal for the GPL than the GPL's original intent. The GPL is a license chosen by the copyright holders to benefit those downstream. As Wol pointed out, OpenWrt wouldn't exist if not for GPL enforcement. Initially, nothing from OpenWrt went to the upstream projects; now, much does. OpenWrt was downstream of BusyBox, Linux, etc.: their goal was getting the source code working *on their own devices*, which is something that the upstream developers who original chose GPL may or may not care about, but I would hope they care about their users' rights in the end. This essay from my colleague might help on this point: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/
Unrelated, Quick note on some other parts of this thread: in any regime where there is a high degree of corruption, any sort of activist-based extra-governmental legal tool, which is what GPL is, will face a difficult battle. GPL enforcement is possible in the USA and Europe because the levels of corruption is substantially lower (only speaking RELATIVELY here, to be clear) than other places.
Posted Jul 9, 2021 20:38 UTC (Fri)
by ecree (guest, #95790)
[Link] (1 responses)
Each developer doubtless has their own motives, but Linus, at least, has been pretty clear that he chose the GPL for reasons of developer reciprocity, rather than anything about "users' freedoms". See https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl.html#28
And I think history shows that a lot more people care about the 'commons' of open source code than about the 'rights of software users', and that the GPL has been successful precisely because both groups can coöperate under it in a way which furthers both sets of goals. It is churlish of the latter group to now complain about this as it applies to projects which only chose the licence in the first place because of it.
> This essay from my colleague might help on this point: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/
I cannot help but consider the linked essay deeply disingenuous. I think the proverbial 'reasonable man' would consider "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" to refer to Makefiles, configure.sh, and suchlike; that is, scripts that are a part of the _software Work_, and which have to do with placing the various components of the Work in proper relation to one another so that they may function together as a whole. To suggest that they cover also the relation of the Work to a particular hardware platform, and tools thereof which are not in any meaningful sense a derived work of the Work, is to stretch the licence's influence beyond the normal reach of copyright law. The GPLv2 explicitly places no restrictions on the running of a covered Work, only on its "copying, distribution and modification"; and a hardware product is not a 'literary work' so cannot be a derived work of the Work (rather, it is merely a medium by which object code of the Work is being distributed).
Indeed, the FSF implicitly conceded this by attempting to change it in GPLv3 (the storied "anti-tivoization clause"). No-one at the time suggested that that part of v3 was an attempt to clarify an existing implication of the licence; it was very clear that all concerned saw the clause as a substantive change. Sadly, it appears as though Mr Gingerich is sufficiently disappointed by the limited uptake of the GPLv3 that he is now attempting to retroactively redefine GPLv2 so as to apply that clause to the works of developers who chose to stick with v2.
Posted Jul 9, 2021 23:26 UTC (Fri)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidel... http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:59 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (12 responses)
If you really want to do that then it's trivial: open the distribution page and look for the links to Yandex.Диск (yadi.sk). There are ISO with modified binutils and gcc - they are needed to cross-compile things for E2k. Of course there are no sources. Would be interesting to see how they explain the refusal to offer these this time, though. Their tune changed over time, but the one thing that remained constant was constant refusal to give anything without NDA (which is not really compatible with GPL, is it?). I'm not really interested with digging up these changes to GCC, I just find it funny when something like that is ignored for years and then, when GCC guys stop asking for copyright assignment, Kuhn starts preaching dangers of the world without them. Sure, FSF wouldn't be able to efficiently assert GPL… but it doesn't do that anyway, so what would change?
Posted Jul 4, 2021 1:34 UTC (Sun)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Jul 4, 2021 13:56 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (10 responses)
Yes, it but it makes many other things easier. And if copyright is dying anyway (like Rob Landley predicted years ago), then what's the point? What good have we got from these enforcements efforts? Not in a form of “how many companies were brought to compliance”, but in “how many useful lines of source code have we got in the end”? Does it still makes sense to assign copyrights to FSF if ROI is so low? Or maybe it's actually high and we just don't know it? If the latter is true then a bit more publicity about what we have got from these compliance efforts and how that source was actually useful for someone would help. Because we know about lots of cases where potential contributions are rejected because authors don't want to pass copyright to FSF. To offset that issue we, naturally, have to show some goodies which have come from that valuable “enforcement” that FSF is doing. So… where is it? What is it? Why it's not something described in article on LWN?
Posted Jul 4, 2021 15:11 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (9 responses)
The big example is OpenWRT or whatever it's called, and of course ObjectiveC, but they're about the only big ones.
As for money, I believe part of the deal is the company pays the FSF's costs, plus a bit more.
And how much NEW code have we received, from companies in compliance? We'll never know.
At the end of the day, do you want to punish and drive away companies who've been sold an illegal product, or do you want them to become legal and good contributors. I think you need to read "how to win friends and influence people" or whatever the book's called - you seem to care more about brutal enforcement and don't worry about the damage - that German guy you referenced basically turned linux into a toxic dump with his antics.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 4, 2021 20:58 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (8 responses)
You've got your answer, you just don't want to accept it: If companies are becoming “legal and good contributors”, but don't bring anything good to the table then what's the point of having them as friends? Decades ago, when free software was novelty and companies often violated copyright out of the ignorance (and when G++ was donated to FSF after similar tuffle, you are seemingly forgot about it) situation was different. But these times are long in the past. Today companies start with knowledge about how copyleft work and they just willingly ignore it. They put their valuable code into separate modules to make sure that even if they would be forced to do what GPL demands — community would get nothing. And that's exactly what happens. What's the point of pulling the punches in an environment like that? Yet somehow Linux is still used by more companies that any other kernel. I think, again, that you know the answer, just refuse to accept it: We will never know and we shouldn't even care. Companies which are developing stuff without playing shady games with sources wouldn't be target of lawsuits, obviously, and, as you have pointed out, companies which are brought to compliance kicking and screaming don't contribute anything valuable.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 22:18 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (7 responses)
To quote Matthew Garrett some five years ago: [1]
"[contributions are] what you care about. That's not what your users care about. They care about code *availability*, not contribution. They don't care whether their vendor participates upstream. They just care about being able to fix their shitty broken piece of hardware when the vendor won't ship updates. "
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discu...
Posted Jul 4, 2021 23:01 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (6 responses)
Do they get this? From what I'm observing usually even if source is extracted from lazy vendor there are not enough developers to fix anything. And if something is actually developed and is useful then it's not because FSF kicked sources for yet another shitty webcam's firmware, but because someone managed to get sources for the Linux kernel or, quite often, just reverse-engineered binaries. And Linux is, ironically, project which is adamantly against copyright assignments and all other things Kuhn proposes.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 23:41 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (5 responses)
With the source code, there is at least a _possibility_ of a "developer" being able to fix something. And for someone actually becoming a "developer" to begin with. Without source code availability, that is frankly never going to happen.
> And if something is actually developed and is useful then it's not because FSF kicked sources for yet another shitty webcam's firmware, but because someone managed to get sources for the Linux kernel or, quite often, just reverse-engineered binaries.
It's useful for folks that actually own those shitty webcams. Isn't empowering users the entire point of this "free software" thing?
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:14 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (4 responses)
Sure. That's interesting theory but how well does it work in practice? It's not 1985th, GPL and it's enforcement happen for more than quarter-century. Again: interesting theory which is thoroughly refuted in practice. Look on popular games and bazillion addons/patches/hacks made by enthusiasts. Most of them don't ever see the source code for the games they are fixing. And while many fixes are trivial (like endless ammunition or the ability to pass through walls) some are quite elaborate (include whole new chapters in some games and new effects and many other such things). Source code, by itself, is not worth much if there are noone who may want to tinker it. Sure. “Free software”, that almost dead movement, is all about “empowering users”. “Open source” software is all about getting contributions back — and if some users get “empowered” as a result then it's nice side benefit. RMS wrote large essay on subject… and it's as correct today as it was when he wrote it. With one caveat: when RMS wrote that essay significant percentage of GNU software developers were actually attracted to “free software” and the idea of “empowering users”. Today… they are tiny minority. Most developers (me including) are very firmly in the “open source” camp. I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure. “Free software” guys are not my enemies and if their efforts don't make my life worse then I can, probably, help. But if all these copyright assignments and enforcement wouldn't help me, then I'm not sure why I should bother. That's the stance of majority of developers out there. If FSF can not accept that and can not adapt to that situation then it would just slowly but surely become irrelevant. Developers would move on and it would just remain a footnote on the Wikipedia.
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:16 UTC (Mon)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:29 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you don't care, then respectfuly, STFU and don't belittle the efforts of those who do care.
> I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure.
Just because *you* do not care does not mean that folks using the derivatives of your code don't.
Posted Jul 5, 2021 15:03 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
> If you don't care, then respectfuly, STFU and don't belittle the efforts of those who do care.
Agreed.
> > I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure.
> Just because *you* do not care does not mean that folks using the derivatives of your code don't.
And again, agreed.
Times have moved on. Back then there was little difference between developers and users. RMS's printer story is an excellent example - he was both. Nowadays, the problem with the Free Software crowd is they don't seem to have realised that developers and users are two almost separate sets. That difference should be RESPECTED, not, as here, where developers seem to be abusing users for not understanding the freedom they are being given.
It's like that American quote I hate about sacrificing freedom for security. Freedom has a cost, and that cost isn't always worth paying. For *today's users*, the cost of code freedom often isn't worth paying, and that needs to be respected.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 6, 2021 14:25 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The entire point of the Free Software crowd's "complete corresponding source code" principle is to ensure "users" don't have to rely on specific "developers" -- with the source code, users can become developers themselves, or choose different developers instead. Without the source code (and the legal right to utilize it)Developers are users too... you'll forever be dependent on that original developer.
Sure, most users might as well be on a different planet when it comes to being able to do something with the source code, but.. so what? The same could be said about pretty much any other specialization in society. Should we also dismiss the plights of farmers because we get our food from supermarkets?
Meanwhile, the only disrespect evident in this discussion has been one set of developers abusing another set of developers for being idealistic, non-pragmatic, and/or naive for believing in "user freedom" because it doesn't result in short-term gains for the original developer (and/or their codebase)
> It's like that American quote I hate about sacrificing freedom for security. Freedom has a cost, and that cost isn't always worth paying. For *today's users*, the cost of code freedom often isn't worth paying, and that needs to be respected.
In this analogy, who is (not) paying what cost, for whose freedom?
Posted Jul 4, 2021 0:49 UTC (Sun)
by ilammy (subscriber, #145312)
[Link]
Just as OP said, legal enforcement is done within a legal framework of a certain country, so FSF being a U.S. company does not really have a strong say in copyright matters in countries other that U.S., without having a local subsidiary.
This whole thing with U.S. copyrights being “scary” is based on the assumption that companies would be afraid to violate them if they want access to this juicy U.S. market, with its customers and investments, without risking costly legal action in U.S. But if a company does not care about that market, they can just do whatever and you can’t do anything about it, except for kicking them out of U.S. market if they do enter there. I don’t know what it would take to turn a license violation into a political incident so that it leads to more than that.
P.S. It seems you have forgot to close your <b> tag, and now the rest of the page is too bold :)
> Under the principles, I would expect FSF/Conservancy to always reinstate permissions, either via (b) or via explicit reinstatement.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Wol
> If a company says "up yours!", then they deserve all they get, and their GPL licence will be revoked - by their own actions!
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> Under the principles, companies that have their violation pointed out and then refuse to come back into compliance will be the target of legal action, as a last resort.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> The human and financial resources that those copyright holders have and their prioritisation of those resources towards enforcement actions. FSF/Conservancy do not have much of either of these and most individual developers probably don't have enough time/money to bring cases.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> but FSF/Conservancy rely on donations in order to do enforcement actions,
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
(cf: the quote from Matthew Garrett being quoted downthread here.)
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> The usual standard of evidence is that a person who was able to receive the binaries, tried to receive the complete corresponding source, build and install it but was not able to do so.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> Preventing enforcement actions or making them less likely just puts a larger barrier in front of enforcement actions.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Wol
> At the end of the day, do you want to punish and drive away companies who've been sold an illegal product, or do you want them to become legal and good contributors.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> "[contributions are] what you care about. That's not what your users care about…They just care about being able to fix their shitty broken piece of hardware when the vendor won't ship updates.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> With the source code, there is at least a _possibility_ of a "developer" being able to fix something.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Wol
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights