legitimizing inherently unjust aspects of the copyright regime.

Therefore Conservancy and the FSF do enforcement according to community-oriented principles originally formulated by the FSF in 2001.

</p>

<h4>Guiding Principles in Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement</h4>

<ul>

<li><strong>Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL

compliance.</strong>  Copyleft's overarching policy

goal is to make  respect of users' freedoms the norm.

The FSF designed the GNU GPL's text towards this end.

Copyleft enforcement done in this spirit focuses on stopping

incorrect distribution, encouraging corrected distribution, and

addressing damage done to the community and users by the past

violation. Addressing past damage often includes steps to notify those

who have already received the software how they can also obtain its

source code, and to explain the scope of their related rights. No

other ancillary goals should supersede full compliance

with the GPL and respect for users' freedoms to copy, share, modify

and redistribute the software.

</li>

<li><strong>Legal action is a last resort. Compliance actions are primarily

education and assistance processes to aid those who are not following the

license.</strong>

Most GPL violations occur by mistake, without ill will.

Copyleft enforcement should assist these distributors to

become helpful participants in the free software

projects on which they rely. Occasionally, violations are intentional

or the result of severe negligence, and there is no duty to be

empathetic in those cases.  Even then, a lawsuit is a

last resort; mutually agreed terms that fix (or at least cease)

further distribution and address damage already done are much better than a battle in court.

</li>

<li><strong>Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and

responsiveness.</strong> Supporters of software

freedom rightly view confidentiality agreements with

distrust, and prefer public discussions.  However, in compliance

work, initiating and continuing discussions in private demonstrates

good faith, provides an opportunity to teach compliance without fear

of public reprisal, and offers a chance to fix honest mistakes.

Enforcement actions that begin with public accusations are much more

likely to end in costly and lengthy lawsuits, and less likely to achieve the

primary goal of coming into compliance. Accordingly, enforcers should,

even if reluctantly, offer confidentiality as a term of settlement. If

it becomes apparent that the company is misusing good faith

confidentiality to cover inaction and unresponsiveness, the problems

may be publicized, after ample warning.</li>

<li><strong>Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize

financial gain.</strong>

Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when

used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is

simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait

for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social

model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable.

An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors

over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial)

staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it.

Copyright holders (or their designated agent) therefore are reasonable

to request compensation for the cost of their time providing the

compliance education that accompanies any constructive enforcement

action. Nevertheless, pursuing damages to the full extent allowed by

copyright law is usually unnecessary, and can in some cases work against

the purpose of copyleft. </li>

<li><strong>Community-oriented compliance work does not request nor accept payment

to overlook problems.</strong>

Community-oriented enforcement cannot accept payments in exchange for

ignoring a violation or accepting incomplete solutions to identified

compliance problems. Ideally, copyright holders should refuse any

payment entirely until the distributor repairs the past violation and

commits formally (in writing) to plans for future compliance.</li>

<li><strong>Community-oriented compliance work starts with carefully

verifying violations and finishes only after a comprehensive

analysis.</strong>

This means fully checking reports and confirming violations before accusing

an entity of violating the GPL. Then, all of the relevant

software should be examined to ensure any compliance problems, beyond

those identified in initial reports and those relating to any clauses of the

relevant licenses, are raised and fixed. This is important so that

the dialogue ends with reasonable assurance for both sides that additional

violations are not waiting to be discovered.

(<a href="http://gpl.guide/pristine-example">Good examples of

compliance</a> already exist to help distributors understand their

obligations.)</li>

<li><strong>Community-oriented compliance processes should extend the

benefit of GPLv3-like termination, even for GPLv2-only

works. </strong> GPLv2 terminates all copyright permissions at the

moment of violation, and that termination is permanent. GPLv3's

termination provision allows first-time violators automatic

restoration of distribution rights when they correct the violation

promptly, and gives the violator a precise list of copyright holders

whose forgiveness it needs. GPLv3's collaborative spirit regarding

termination reflects a commitment to and hope for future cooperation

and collaboration. It's a good idea to follow this approach in

compliance situations stemming from honest mistakes, even when the

violations are on works under GPLv2.</li>

</ul>

<p>These principles are not intended as a strict set of rules.

Achieving compliance requires an understanding of the violator's

situation, not so as to excuse the violation, but so as to see how

to bring that violator into compliance.  Copyleft licenses do not

state specific enforcement methodologies (other than license termination itself)

in part because the real world situation of GPL violations varies;

rigidity impedes success. </p>

<p>In particular, this list of principles purposely does not seek to

create strict criteria and/or “escalation and mediation

rules” for enforcement action. Efforts to do that limit the

ability of copyright holders to use copyleft licenses for their

intended effect: to stand up for the rights of users to copy, modify,

and redistribute free software.</p>

<p>The GPL,

enforced when necessary according to these principles, provides a

foundation for respectful, egalitarian, software-sharing

communities.

</p>