<p>Conservancy, after years of analyzing its successes and failures of

  previous GPL compliance litigation, has developed — in conjunction with

  litigation counsel over the last year — new approaches to litigation

  strategy.  We believe this will bring to fruition the promise of copyleft:

  a license that ensures the rights and software freedoms of hobbyists who

<h3 id="persistent-non-litigation-enforcement">Persistent Non-Litigation Enforcement</h3>

<p>While we will seek damages to cover our reasonable costs of this work, we

  do not expect that any recovery in litigation can fully fund the broad base

  of work necessary to ensure compliance and the software freedom it brings.

  devices we previously had no idea contained Linux, and we’ll begin our

  diligent and unrelenting work to achieve software freedom for the owners of

  those devices. We will also build more partnerships across the technology

  sector and consumer rights organizations to highlight the benefit of

  copyleft to not just hobbyists, but the entire general public.</p>

<p>The success of the OpenWrt project, born from GPL enforcement, has an

  important component. While we’ve long hoped that volunteers, as they did

  with OpenWrt and SamyGo, will take up compliant sources obtained in our GPL

  enforcement efforts and build alternative firmware projects, history shows

  us that the creation of such projects is not guaranteed and exceedingly

  rare.</p>

<p>Traditionally, our community has relied exclusively on volunteers to take

  up this task, and financial investment only comes after volunteers have put

  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

  some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project creation and

  development.</p>

and improvement of the released software for users.</p>

<h2 id="gpl-enforcement-needs-follow-through">GPL Enforcement Needs Follow-Through</h2>

<p>Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy

  <a href="enforcement-strategy.html">continues our efforts in that

  replicate <a href="/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement">the

  effort <strong>after</strong> enforcement occurs to turn the compliant

  source release into a viable alternative firmware for the platform.</p>

<p>Conservancy has seen non-compliant Linux-based firmwares on refrigerators,

  baby monitors, virtual assistants, soundbars, doorbells, home security

  cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, and televisions.  We

  devices is wholly theoretical. For technical users, there is a limited time

  available to invest in the devices they use for their everyday

  lives. Bringing people together to take collective action for the control

  of their own technology is a powerful proposition that has rarely been

  demonstrated.</p>

  non-technical users can replace the software on their devices and benefit

  from custom, community-controlled software. Technical users are more likely

  to contribute knowing their efforts will be meaningful.</p>

<p>However, decades of corporate involvement in copyleft have demonstrated

  that without an organized effort, control over one’s own software is purely

<p><a href="enforcement-strategy.html">Conservancy already plans to select a

  specific violation and engage in litigation.</a> 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 BusyBox-related litigation in 2006.)

  This expected change in behavior will open opportunities to replicate the

  will be necessary; most IoT products have an 18 month lifecycle, so we seek

  to quickly identify the right subindustry, gain compliance there, and move

  on to the next phase.</p>

<h3 id="funding-firmware-liberation">Funding Firmware Liberation</h3>

<p>While we’ve long hoped that volunteers would take up compliant sources

  obtained in our GPL enforcement efforts and build alternative firmware

  such projects is not guaranteed and exceedingly rare.</p>

<p>Traditionally, our community has relied exclusively on volunteers to take

  up this task, and financial investment only comes after volunteers have put

  in the unfunded work to make a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) liberated

  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 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.)</p>

  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.</p>

<p>Conservancy will seek to fund the time of project leaders and

  infrastructure for the project. The goal is to build a firm base that draws

</ul>

<p>Finally, Conservancy will be prepared and willing to recognize temporary

  failure and setbacks in a particular subindustry and pivot quickly to

  choosing a different class of devices. This project is ambitious, and we’ll

{% endblock %}