Changeset - 30e4942891c6
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 9 years ago 2014-11-19 17:56:28
bkuhn@ebb.org
Reword paragraph; Include ref: "standard requests"

Mostly these changes are wordsmith, but I added a note that violators
should ask for the "standard requests" for compliance to be adequate.
1 file changed with 8 insertions and 5 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -1131,48 +1131,49 @@ You are eligible for automatic reinstatement when:
 

	
 
In addition to these permanent reinstatements provided under v3, violators
 
who voluntarily correct their violation also receive provisional
 
permission to continue distributing until they receive contact from the
 
copyright holder.  If sixty days pass without contact, that reinstatement
 
becomes permanent.  Nonetheless, you should be prepared to cease
 
distribution during those initial sixty days should you receive a
 
termination notice from the copyright holder.
 

	
 
Given that much discussion of v3 has focused on its so-called more
 
complicated requirements, it should be noted that v3 is, in this regard,
 
more favorable to violators than v2.
 

	
 
However, note that most Linux-based systems typically include some software
 
licensed under GPLv2-only, and thus the copyright holders have withheld
 
permission to redistribute under terms of GPLv3.  In larger aggregate
 
distributions which include GPLv2-only works (such as the kernel named
 
Linux), redistributors must operate as if termination is immediate and
 
permanent, since the technological remove of GPLv2-only works from the larger
 
distribution requires much more engineering work than the negotiation
 
required to seek restoration of rights for distribution under GPLv2-only
 
after permanent termination.
 

	
 
\chapter{Standard Requests}
 
\label{enforcement-standard-requests}
 

	
 
As we noted above, different copyright holders have different requirements
 
for reinstating a violator's distribution rights.  Upon violation, you no
 
longer have a license under the GPL\@.  Copyright holders can therefore
 
set their own requirements outside the license before reinstatement of
 
rights.  We have collected below a list of reinstatement demands that
 
copyright holders often require.
 

	
 
\begin{itemize}
 

	
 
\item {\bf Compliance on all Free Software copyrights}.  Copyright holders of Free Software
 
  often want a company to demonstrate compliance for all GPL'd software in
 
  a distribution, not just their own.  A copyright holder may refuse to
 
  reinstate your right to distribute one program unless and until you
 
  comply with the licenses of all Free Software in your distribution.
 
 
 
\item {\bf Notification to past recipients}.  Users to whom you previously
 
  distributed non-compliant software should receive a communication
 
  (email, letter, bill insert, etc.) indicating the violation, describing
 
  their rights under the GPL, and informing them how to obtain a gratis source
 
  distribution.  If a customer list does not exist (such as in reseller
 
  situations), an alternative form of notice may be required (such as a
 
  magazine advertisement).
 

	
...
 
@@ -1422,54 +1423,56 @@ key piece of copylefted software and enforce as a mechanism to find out who
 
is most likely to fund improvements on the software.
 

	
 
A few companies report that they have formed beneficial consulting or
 
employment relationships with developers they first encountered through
 
enforcement.  In some such cases, companies have worked with such consultants
 
to alter the mode of use of the project's code in the company's products.
 
More often in these cases, the communication channels opened in the course of
 
the inquiry served other consulting purposes later.
 

	
 
Feelings and opinions about this behavior are mixed within the larger
 
copyleft community.  Some see it as a reasonable business model and others
 
renounce it as corrupt behavior.  Regardless, a GPL
 
violator should always immediately determine the motivations of the
 
enforcer via documented, verifiable facts.  For example, COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial
 
public commitments to enforce in a way that is uniform, transparent, and
 
publicly documented.  Furthermore, since these specific organizations are
 
public charities in the USA, they
 
are accountable to the IRS (and the public at large) in their annual Form 990
 
filings.   Everyone may examine their revenue models and scrutinize their
 
work.
 

	
 
However, entities and individuals who do GPL enforcement centered primarily
 
around a profit motive are likely the most dangerous enforcement entities for
 
one simple reason: an agreement to comply fully with the GPL for past and
 
future products, which is always the paramount goal to COGEOs, may not be an
 
future products --- always the paramount goal to COGEOs --- may not suffice as
 
adequate resolution for a proprietary relicensing company or grey hat GPL
 
enforcer.  Therefore, violators are advised to consider carefully who has
 
made the enforcement inquiry and ask when and where they have made public
 
commitments and reports regarding their enforcement work, perhaps asking them
 
to directly mimic the detailed public disclosures done by COGEOs.
 
enforcer.  Therefore, violators must consider carefully who has
 
made the enforcement inquiry and ask when and where the enforcer made public
 
commitments and reports regarding their enforcement work and perhaps even ask
 
the enforcer to directly mimic CEOGEO's detailed public disclosures and
 
follow the \hypperref[enforcement-standard-requests]{standard requests for
 
  resolution} found in this document.
 

	
 
\chapter{Conclusion}
 

	
 
GPL compliance need not be an onerous process.  Historically, struggles
 
have been the result of poor development methodologies and communications,
 
rather than any unexpected application of the GPL's source code disclosure
 
requirements.
 

	
 
Compliance is straightforward when the entirety of your enterprise is
 
well-informed and well-coordinated.  The receptionists should know how to
 
route a GPL source request or accusation of infringement.  The lawyers
 
should know the basic provisions of Free Software licenses and your source
 
disclosure requirements, and should explain those details to the software
 
developers.  The software developers should use a version control system
 
that allows them to associate versions of source with distributed
 
binaries, have a well-documented build process that anyone skilled in the
 
art can understand, and inform the lawyers when they bring in new
 
software.  Managers should build systems and procedures that keep everyone
 
on target.  With these practices in place, any organization can comply
 
with the GPL without serious effort, and receive the substantial benefits
 
of good citizenship in the software freedom community, and lots of great code
 
ready-made for their products.
 

	
 
\vfill
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)