\section{Lessons Learned}

Companies that seek to redistribute copylefted software can benefit greatly

from ThinkPenguin's example.  Here are just a few of the many lessons that

can be learned here:

\begin{enumerate}

\item Even though copyleft licenses have them,

  \hyperref[thinkpenguin-included-ccs]{\bf avoid the offer-for-source

    provisions}.  Not only does including the CCS alongside binary

  distribution make violation investigation and compliance confirmation

  substantially easier, but also (and more importantly) doing so

  \hyperref[offer-for-source]{completes the distributor's CCS compliance

    obligations at the time of distribution} (provided, of course, that the

  distributor is otherwise in compliance with the relevant copyleft license).

\item {\bf Include top-level build instructions in a natural language (such

  as English) in a \hyperref[thinkpenguin-toplevel-readme]{clear and

    conspicuous place}.}  Copyleft licenses require that someone reasonably

  skilled in the art can reproduce the build and installation.  Typically,

  instructions written in English are necessary, and often easier than writing

  programmed scripts.  The ``script'' included can

  certainly be more like the script of a play and less like a Bash script.

\item {\bf Write build/install instructions to the appropriate level of

  specificity}.  The upstream engineers

  in this case study \hyperref[thinkpenguin-specific-host-system]{clearly did

    additional work to ensure functionality on a wide variety of host build

    systems}; this is quite rare.  When in doubt, include the maximum level

  of detail build engineers can provide with the CCS instructions, but also

  double-check to investigate if a more generalized solution (such as other

  host systems) work just as well for the build.

\item {\bf Seek to adhere to the spirit of copyleft, not just the letter of

  the license}.  Encouragement of users to improve and

  make their devices better is one of ThinkPenguin's commercial differentiators.  Copyleft advocates

  that other companies have undervalued the large and lucrative

  market of

  users who seek hackable devices.  By going beyond the

  mere minimal requirements of GPL, companies can immediately reap the

  benefits in that target market.

  \item Community-oriented enforcement organizations do not play ``gotcha''\footnote{For lack of a better

    phrase.} with distributors regarding GPL

    violations.  The goal in the GPL enforcement process is to achieve

    compliance and correct mistakes and annoyances.  Such organizations

    due to honest error rather than malicious action '' approach.  The goal

    is compliance (in direct contrast with

    the \hyperref[Proprietary Relicensing]{discussion in \S~\ref*{Proprietary Relicensing} about the

      proprietary relicensing} business model).

\end{enumerate}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Bortez: Modified GCC SDK}

In our first case study, we will consider Bortez, a company that

produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers

of consumer electronic devices.

\section{Facts}

One of Bortez's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')

designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of

consumer electronics devices.

FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler

Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software

development in C, C++ and other popular languages). FSF investigated the

claim, but was unable to confirm the violation. The violation reporter

was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.

Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any

further. Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies

with specious GPL violation complaints. FSF shelved the matter until

more evidence was discovered.

FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports

surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK

professionally and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's

Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm

the violation, and it was confirmed that Bortez's SDK was indeed a

modified version of GCC\@. Bortez had ported to Windows and added a number

of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and

additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those

specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these

customers and pointed out, for example, that Bortez only needed to provide

source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need

to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators

confirmed that such requests were not answered.

FSF brought the matter to the attention of Bortez, who immediately

escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation,

Bortez acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a modified version of