Copyleft/guide Changeset - 2e4dac47f8a4

Changeset - 2e4dac47f8a4

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 16:54:57
bkuhn@ebb.org

Section still needs work, but this is better.

1 file changed with 21 insertions and 9 deletions:

compliance-guide.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

compliance-guide.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 \section{Understanding Who's Enforcing}
 \label{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
 % FIXME: this text needs work.
+% FIXME-LATER: this text needs work.
 At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF
 Both  FSF and Conservancy has, as part their mission,  to spread software
 freedom. When FSF or Conservancy
 enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
 quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
 That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
 with the license and respect freedom.
 However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
 freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.
 MySQL AB, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon
 discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software
 license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF
 would ever consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for
 copyright holders to proceed.
 However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software freedom
 as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.  Oracle, a
 company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon discovering GPL
 violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license separately for
 a fee.  While this practice is not one that FSF nor Conservancy would ever
 consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legally way for copyright
 holders to proceed.
 Generally, GPL enforcers come in two varieties.  First, there are
 Conservancy, FSF, and other ``community enforcers'', who primary seek the
 policy goals of GPL (software freedom), and see financial compensation as
 ultimately secondary to those goals.  Second, there are ``for-profit
 enforcers'' who use the GPL as a either a crippleware license, or sneakily
 induce infringement merely to gain proprietary licensing revenue.
 Note that the latter model \texit{only} works for companies who hold 100\% of
 the copyrights in the infringed work.  As such, multi-copyright-held works
 are fully insulated from these tactics.
 \section{Communication Is Key}

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)