File diff 764802727541 → 0bbf9ec882d0
enforcement-case-studies.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -119,13 +119,13 @@ activities of copying, modifying and distributing. They have lost
 
these rights because they have violated the GPL, and no other license
 
gives them permission to engage in these activities governed by copyright law.
 

	
 
\section{Ongoing Violations}
 

	
 
In conjunction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is
 
one final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a
 
one final industry fact added to the mix: rarely does one engage in a
 
single, solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.
 
Almost always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy of a
 
GPL'd program, either making modifications or not, and then begun
 
distributing that work. For example, the violator may have put the
 
software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the software
 
was put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the delivery
...
 
@@ -334,13 +334,13 @@ contact with Darvik's Compliance Officer.
 

	
 
This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.
 

	
 
\begin{enumerate}
 

	
 
\item {\bf Enforcement should not begin until the evidence is confirmed.}
 
  Most companies who distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at
 
  Most companies that distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at
 
  times, violation reports are mistaken. Even with extensive efforts in
 
  GPL education, many users do not fully understand their rights and the
 
  obligations that companies have. By working through the investigation
 
  with reporters, the violation can be properly confirmed, and {\bf the
 
    user of the software can be educated about what to expect with GPL'd
 
    software}. When users and customers of GPL'd products know their
...
 
@@ -633,13 +633,13 @@ did so, and the violation was resolved.
 
  obligations, and ``security through obscurity'' does not work anyway.}
 
  The argument that ``this is security software, so it cannot be released
 
  in source form'' is not a valid defense for explaining why the terms of
 
  the GPL are ignored. If companies do not want to release source code
 
  for some reason, then they should not base the work on GPL'd software.
 
  No external argument for noncompliance can hold weight if the work as
 
  whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.
 
  a whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.
 

	
 
  The ``security concerns'' argument is often floated as a reason to keep
 
  software proprietary, but the computer security community has on
 
  numerous occasions confirmed that such arguments are entirely specious.
 
  Security experts have found --- since the beginnings of the field of
 
  cryptography in the ancient world --- that sharing results about systems