@@ -1427,19 +1427,20 @@ 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. However, from the point of view of a GPL
violator, the most important issue is to determine the motivations of the
enforcer. The COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial
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. Since these organizations are public charities, they
are accountable to the IRS and the public at large in their annual Form 990
filings, and everyone can examine their revenue models and scrutinize their
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