Changeset - 312e3f7e92f8
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 01:07:31
bkuhn@ebb.org
Correct paragraph.
1 file changed with 4 insertions and 4 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -68,53 +68,53 @@ ongoing private enforcement and increased pressure on businesses to
 
comply.  In 2003, the FSF formalized its efforts into the GPL Compliance
 
Lab, increased the volume of enforcement, and built community coalitions
 
to encourage copyright holders to together settle amicably with violators.
 
Beginning in 2004, Harald Welte took a more organized public enforcement
 
approach and launched \verb0gpl-violations.org0, a website and mailing
 
list for collecting reports of GPL violations.  On the basis of these
 
reports, Welte successfully pursued many enforcements in Europe, including
 
formal legal action.  Harald earns the permanent fame as the first copyright
 
holder to bring legal action in a Court regarding GPL compliance. 
 

	
 
In 2007, two copyright holders in BusyBox, in conjunction with the
 
Software Freedom Conservancy (``Conservancy''), filed the first copyright infringement lawsuit
 
based on a violation of the GPL\@ in the USA. While  lawsuits are of course
 
quite public, the vast majority of Conservancy's enforcement actions 
 
are resolved privately via
 
cooperative communications with violators.  As both FSF and Conservancy has worked to bring
 
individual companies into compliance, both organizations have encountered numerous
 
violations resulting from preventable problems such as inadequate
 
attention to licensing of upstream software, misconceptions about the
 
GPL's terms, and poor communication between software developers and their
 
management.  This document highlights these problems and describe
 
best practices to encourage corporate Free Software users to reevaluate their
 
approach to GPL'd software and avoid future violations.
 

	
 
SFLC continues to conduct GPL enforcement and compliance efforts for many
 
of its clients who release their software under the GPL, the GNU Lesser
 
Public License (LGPL) and other copyleft licenses.  In doing so, we have
 
Both FSF and Conservancy continue GPL enforcement and compliance efforts
 
for software under the GPL, the GNU Lesser
 
Public License (LGPL) and other copyleft licenses.  In doing so, both organizations have
 
found that most violations stem from a few common mistakes that can be,
 
for the most part, easily avoided.  We hope to educate the community of
 
for the most part, easily avoided.  All copyleft advocates  hope to educate the community of
 
commercial distributors, redistributors, and resellers on how to avoid
 
violations in the first place, and to respond adequately and appropriately
 
when a violation occurs.
 

	
 
\chapter{Best Practices to Avoid Common Violations}
 
\label{best-practices}
 

	
 
Unlike highly permissive licenses (such as the ISC license), which
 
typically only require preservation of copyright notices, the GPL places a
 
number of important requirements upon licensees.  These requirements are
 
carefully designed to uphold certain values and standards of the software
 
freedom community.  While the GPL's requirements may appear initially
 
counter-intuitive to those more familiar with proprietary software
 
licenses, by comparison its terms are in fact clear and favorable to
 
licensees.  The terms of the GPL actually simplify compliance when
 
violations occur.
 

	
 
GPL violations are often caused or compounded by a failure to adopt sound
 
practices for the incorporation of GPL'd components into a company's
 
internal development environment.  In this section, we introduce some best
 
practices for software tool selection, integration and distribution,
 
inspired by and congruent with software freedom methodologies.  We suggest companies
 
establish such practices before building a product based on GPL'd
 
software.\footnote{This document addresses compliance with GPLv2,
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)