Changeset - 90cf11f1c241
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 7 years ago 2015-03-05 18:39:57
bkuhn@ebb.org
Sure up wording for ambiguous modifier

HT jackhill for this suggestion.
1 file changed with 2 insertions and 3 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-appeal.html
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -27,51 +27,50 @@ NDA just to discuss settlement terms!</p>
 
19, 2015, Christoph has contributed 279,653 lines of code to the Linux kernel, 
 
and ranks 20th among the 1,340 developers involved in the latest 3.19 kernel 
 
release.  Christoph also
 
ranks 4th among those who have reviewed third-party source code, tirelessly
 
corrected and commented on other developers' contributions.  Christoph
 
licenses his code to the public under the terms of the GPL for practical and
 
ideological reasons.  VMware, a company with net revenue of over $1 billion
 
and over 14,000 employees, ignored Christoph's choice.  They took Christoph's
 
code from Linux and modified it to work with their own kernel without releasing
 
source code of the resulting complete work.  This is precisely the kind of
 
activity Christoph and other kernel developers seek to prevent by choosing
 
the GPL.  The GPL was written to prevent this specific scenario!</p>
 

	
 
<h3>This is a matter of principle.</h3>
 

	
 
<p>Free and open source software is everywhere and in everything; yet our
 
  software freedom is constantly eroded.</p>
 

	
 
<p>We want companies to incorporate our software into new products, but there
 
are a few simple rules.  Copylefted free software is so prevalent because
 
there's no way a company can compete without using a significant amount of
 
free software to bring products to market in reasonable time. They get so
 
much benefit from our work.  Allowing the whole community to review, use,
 
improve and work with the code seems very little to ask in return.  Copyleft
 
also ensures competitors cannot undercut those who contribute.  The GPL is
 
effectively no different from a non-copyleft license without active
 
enforcement.</p>
 
also ensures competitors cannot undercut those who contribute.  Without active enforcement, the GPL is
 
effectively no different from a non-copyleft license.</p>
 

	
 
<p>What point is there for companies to make sure that they're compliant if
 
there are no consequences when the GPL is violated? Many will continue to
 
ignore the rules without enforcement.  We know that there are so many
 
companies that willingly comply and embrace GPL as part of their business.
 
Some are temporarily out of compliance and need to be brought up to speed,
 
but willingly comply once they realize there is an issue.  Sadly, VMware sits
 
in the rare but infamous class of perpetually non-compliant companies. VMware
 
has been aware of their noncompliance for years but actively refuses to do
 
the right thing.  Help us do right by those who take the code in the spirit
 
it was given and comply with copyleft, and stop those don't.</p>
 

	
 
<p>We know that copyleft isn't a favorite licensing strategy for some in our
 
community.  Even so, this case will help bring clarity on the question of
 
combined and derivative works, and is essential to the future of all software
 
freedom.  This case deserves support from copyleft and non-copyleft free
 
software communities alike.</p>
 

	
 
<h3>Show you care</h3>
 

	
 
<p>Bad actors have become complacent because they think you don't care.  A
 
  strong show of public support for Conservancy and Christoph's position will
 
  help our legal case and demonstrate the interpretive context for it.
 
  Please <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">donate</a> to our campaign to enforce the GPL.  Help Conservancy
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)