central to their success, because it ensures that the code base

remains common, and that large and small companies are on equal

footing for access to the technology. Consider, for example, the GNU

Compiler Collection (GCC). Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the

early 1990s, was able to grow steadily simply by providing services

for GCC --- mostly consisting of new ports of GCC to different or new,

embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that

it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.

However, there are very small companies that compete in

this space. Because the code-base is protected by the GPL, it creates and

demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and

improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their

work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target

platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard

versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.

\medskip

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}

A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is

proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for

software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to

relicense.\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights

  either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting

  copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding

  unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal

  agreement} As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is

permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her

copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as

she wishes.

Some companies use this to their

financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard

version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.

However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for

a fee.

This business model is at best problematic and at worst predatory because it means that the GPL'd code

base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer

Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to

the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the

software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code

contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.

\section{Ongoing Compliance}

GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter --- much simpler than

typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most

difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one

that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly

complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer

headaches than proprietary license compliance.

For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified}

versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by

much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free

Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,

admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software

systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are

clearly and legally separate and independent works, merely aggregated

together on the same device.

exchange for this amazing benefit, the license requires that the modifier gives

back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a

reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also

making a profit.

Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need

assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL

Compliance Labs at $<$licensing@fsf.org$>$.

%FIXME-LATER: should have \tutorialpart

If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we

recommend the next two parts, which include both recommendations on good

compliance and compliance case studies.

% =====================================================================

% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION

% =====================================================================

%%  LocalWords:  Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC

%%  LocalWords:  noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC

%%  LocalWords:  proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS

%%  LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful

%%  LocalWords:  legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA

%%  LocalWords:  unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel

%%  LocalWords:  Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis

%%  LocalWords:  Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's

%%  LocalWords:  redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors

%%  LocalWords:  CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt

%%  LocalWords:  patentee  relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS

%%  LocalWords:  Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric

%%  LocalWords:  permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs

%%  LocalWords:  preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR

%%  LocalWords:  anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson

%%  LocalWords:  subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES

%%  LocalWords:  cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell

%%  LocalWords:  anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable

%%  LocalWords:  sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's

%%  LocalWords:  severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's

%%  LocalWords:  relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista

%%  LocalWords:  CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech Michlmayr Copyleft's

%%  LocalWords:  GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic privity Downstream's Jaeger

%%  LocalWords:  Jaeger's copyleft's executables estoppel infringer