From 6648ed63ca6b905e622d031c51601888e902de26 2020-07-15 23:59:24 From: Denver Gingerich Date: 2020-07-15 23:59:24 Subject: [PATCH] Copyleft Compliance: mostly minor fixes to new pgs These are mostly minor edits (typo fixes, etc.) to the enforcement strategy and firmware liberation pages that were just added. The one large change was to replace the first paragraph of the enforcement strategy page with the full Conservancy description used previously. The glue text used to shorten it appeared unsalvageable and it wasn't immediately obvious how to replace it with something better, so we used the full description instead. --- diff --git a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html index 649a7d03bd001aea2182344783d5ec8398d01afc..e6ef2b7421a2c3a09492c71c9dc3cc4521beb862 100644 --- a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html +++ b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html @@ -6,7 +6,12 @@

History and Future Strategy

The Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity - registered in New York that continues it work in the are of important + registered in New York. Founded in 2006, Conservancy helps people take control + of their computing by growing the software freedom movement, supporting + community-driven alternatives to proprietary software, and defending free + software with practical initiatives. Conservancy accomplishes these goals + with various initiatives including fiscal sponsorship, licensing and project + governance policy, and public advocacy. Some of Conservancy's most important licensing policy work involves defending and upholding the rights of software users and consumers under copyleft licenses, such as the GPL.

@@ -24,7 +29,7 @@ the router, but Linksys and Cisco had failed to provide source code or any offer for source code to its customers.

-

A coalition formed including organizations and individuals — including +

A coalition formed made up of organizations and individuals — including Erik Andersen (major contributor to and former leader of the BusyBox project) and Harald Welte (major contributor to Linux’s netfilter subsystem) — to enforce the @@ -32,7 +37,7 @@ M. Kuhn, who is now Conservancy’s Policy Analyst and Hacker-in-Residence, led and coordinated that coalition when he was Executive Director of the FSF. By early 2004, this coalition, through the - process of GPL enforcement,compelled Linksys to release an + process of GPL enforcement, compelled Linksys to release an almost-GPL-compliant source release for the WRT54G. A group of volunteers quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT based on that source @@ -115,10 +120,10 @@

There is one overarching irony to this growing dystopia: nearly all these devices are based primarily on software licensed under the GPL: most notably, Linux. While Linux-based systems do allow proprietary user-space - applications not licensed under GPL, the kernel (and many other system + applications not licensed under GPL, the kernel and many other system utilities routinely used in embedded systems, such as Conservancy’s BusyBox - project) are under that license (or similar copyleft licenses such as the - LGPL). These licenses require device markers to provide complete, + project, are under that license (or similar copyleft licenses such as the + LGPL). These licenses require device makers to provide complete, corresponding source code to everyone in possession of their devices. Furthermore, Linux’s specific license (GPL, version 2), mandates that source code must also include “the scripts used to control compilation @@ -139,9 +144,9 @@ solutions. E-recyclers like Freegeek do this regularly for desktop and laptop machines with GNU/Linux distributions like Debian, and - with OpenWRT for wireless routers. We seek to assure they can do this for + with OpenWRT for wireless routers. We seek to ensure they can do this for other types of electronic products. However, without the complete, - corresponding source code and the scripts to control its compilation and + corresponding source code, including the scripts to control its compilation and installation, the fundamental purpose of copyleft is frustrated. Consumers, hobbyists, non-profit e-recyclers and the general public are left without the necessary tools they need and deserve, and which the license promises @@ -168,7 +173,7 @@

“Internet of Things” firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the vendor of the hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and - inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and control of their + inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and loss of control of their technology. Conservancy’s GPL enforcement work is part of the puzzle that ensures users can choose who their devices connect to, and how they connect. Everyone deserves control over their own computing — from their @@ -182,7 +187,7 @@ Project for Linux Developers

In May 2012, Software Freedom Conservancy - formed The GPL + formed The GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers in response to frustration by upstream Linux developers about the prevalence of noncompliance in the field, and their desire to stand with Conservancy’s BusyBox, Git and Samba @@ -286,13 +291,13 @@ in the unfunded work to make an MVP alternative firmware. While volunteer involvement remains essential to the success of alternative firmware projects, we know from our fiscal sponsorship work that certain aspects of - FOSS projects require an experienced charity to initiate and jump start + FOSS projects require an experienced charity to initiate and jump-start some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project creation and development.

Conservancy plans to select a specific class of device. Upon achieving compliant source releases in that subindustry through GPL enforcement, - Conservancy will launch an alternative - firmware project for that class of device.

+ Conservancy will launch an alternative + firmware project for that class of device.

{% endblock %} diff --git a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html index 17f63d51ef296d562844a029717e460aa477953e..e9f608bc2406985260ce27c6595f255702ba4675 100644 --- a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html +++ b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ projects.

A coalition successfully enforced the GPL in this case, and Linksys - released source code A group of + released source code. A group of volunteers quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT based on that source release. In the years that have followed, OpenWRT has been ported to almost every major wireless router product. Now, more than 15 years later, @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, and televisions.

This wide deployment of general purpose computers into mundane household - devices raises profound privacy and consumer rights + devices has profound privacy and consumer rights implications. Home security cameras are routinely compromised — invading the privacy and security of individual homes. Even when companies succeed in keeping out third parties, consumers @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@

“Internet of Things” firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the vendor of the hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and - inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and control of their + inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and loss of control of their technology. Conservancy plans to address this issue in the manner that the FOSS community knows best: put one foot in front of the other, and work to create FOSS for every possible task that users want to accomplish. For IoT @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ market.

Demonstrating the power - of software freedom,

+ of software freedom

To many, the benefits of software freedom are abstract. For less technical users, the idea of modifying or even reviewing the software on their @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@

When alternative firmware projects like OpenWRT exist for IoT devices, non-technical users can replace the software on their devices and benefit - from custom, community-controled software. Technical users are more likely + from custom, community-controlled software. Technical users are more likely to contribute knowing their efforts will be meaningful.

However, decades of corporate involvement in copyleft have demonstrated @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Enforcement

Conservancy plans to select a specific - violation and engage in litigation. Based on past experience, we expect + violation and engage in litigation. Based on past experience, we expect that the press and attention to that ongoing litigation will yield increased responsiveness by violators throughout the industry. (A similar outcome occurred after our litigation in 2006.) This expected change in @@ -142,9 +142,9 @@ that certain aspects of FOSS projects require an experienced charity to initiate and jump-start some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project creation and development. (In our last fiscal year, Conservancy funded 160 - contributors to work on FOSS)

+ contributors to work on FOSS.)

-

In the initial phase of this grant, Conservancy will to select a specific +

In the initial phase of this grant, Conservancy will select a specific class of device. Upon achieving compliant source releases in that subindustry through GPL enforcement, Conservancy will launch an alternative firmware project for that class of device.

@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ periods for a grassroots hobbyist activity is quite challenging; we seek to use this grant to bootstrap and catalyze interest and contribution to the project. Ideally, Conservancy would run the project with a single full-time - staffer for a about a year, and achieve a volunteer base sufficient to + staffer for about a year, and achieve a volunteer base sufficient to reduce funding to one part-time staffer.

Criteria for Device Selection