{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}EnforcementStrategy{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h1 id="software-freedom-conservancy-proposal-for-gpl-enforcement-grant">History and Future Strategy</h1>

<p>The Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity

  licensing policy work involves defending and upholding the rights of

  software users and consumers under copyleft licenses, such as the GPL.</p>

<h2 id="brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement">Brief History of

  User-Focused GPL Enforcement</h2>

<p>The spring of 2003 was a watershed moment for software freedom on

  electronic devices. 802.11 wireless technology had finally reached the

  mainstream, and wireless routers for home use had flooded the market

  earlier in the year. By June

  2003, <a href="https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/03/06/08/1749217/is-linksys-violating-the-GPL">the

    general public knew that Linksys (a division of Cisco) was violating the

    GPL</a> on their WRT54G model wireless routers. Hobbyists discovered

  (rather easily) that Linux, BusyBox and many GNU programs were included in

  the router, but Linksys and Cisco had failed to provide source code or any

  offer for source code to its customers.</p>

  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

  GPL. <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/about/staff/#bkuhn">Bradley

    M. Kuhn</a>, 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

  almost-GPL-compliant source release for the

  WRT54G. A <a href="https://openwrt.org/about/history">group of volunteers

    quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT</a> 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, the

  OpenWRT project routinely utilizes GPL source releases to build, improve

  and port OpenWRT. The project has also joined coalitions to fight the FCC

  to ensure that consumers have and deserve rights to install modified

  firmwares on their devices and that such hobbyist improvements are no

  threat to spectrum regulation.</p>

<p>Recently, OpenWRT decided to join Conservancy as one its member projects,

  — invading the privacy and security of individual homes. Even when

  companies succeed in keeping out third parties, consumers

  are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/29/ring-amazon-police-partnership-social-media-neighbor">pressured

    by camera makers</a> to automatically upload their videos to local

  police. Televisions

  routinely <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/vizio-settlement-moves-forward/">spy

    on consumers for the purposes of marketing and massive data

    collection</a>.</p>

<p>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

  utilities routinely used in embedded systems, such as Conservancy’s BusyBox

  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

  and installation of the executable”. In short, the consumers must receive

  all the source code and the ability to modify, recompile and reinstall that

  software. Upholding of this core freedom for Linux made OpenWRT

  possible. We work to preserve (or, more often, restore) that software

  freedom for consumers of other types of electronic devices.</p>

<p>When devices are compliant with the GPL’s requirements, customers can

  individually or collectively take action against the surveillance and other

  predatory behavior perpetuated by the manufacturers of these devices by

  modifying and replacing the software. Hobbyists can aid their community by

  providing these alternatives. People with no technical background already

  replace firmware on their wireless routers with OpenWRT to both improve

  network performance and allay privacy concerns. Furthermore, older

  equipment is often saved from planned obsolescence by alternative

  solutions. E-recyclers

  like <a href="https://www.freegeek.org/">Freegeek</a> do this regularly for

  desktop and laptop machines with GNU/Linux distributions like Debian, and

  other types of electronic products. However, without the complete,

  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

  them.</p>

<p>Additionally, copyleft compliance relates directly to significant

  generational educational opportunities. There are few easier ways to

  understand technology than to experiment with a device one already

  has. Historically, FOSS has succeeded because young hobbyists could

  examine, modify and experiment with software in their own devices. Those

  hobbyists became the professional embedded device developers of today!

  Theoretically, the advent of the “Internet of Things” — with its many

  lives. Yet, that’s rarely possible in reality. To ensure that both current

  and future hobbyists can practically modify their Linux-based devices, we

  must enforce Linux’s license. With public awareness that their devices can

  be improved, the desire for learning will increase, and will embolden the

  curiosity of newcomers of all ages and backgrounds. The practical benefits

  of this virtuous cycle are immediately apparent. With technological

  experimentation, people are encouraged to try new things, learn how their

  devices work, and perhaps create whole new types of devices and

  technologies that no one has even dreamed of before.</p>

<p>“Internet of Things” firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the

  vendor of the hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and

  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

  laptop to their television to their toaster. When the public can modify (or

  help others modify) the software on their devices, they choose the level of

  centralized control they are comfortable with. Currently, users with

  Linux-based devices usually don’t even realize what is possible with

  copyleft; Conservancy aims to show them.</p>

<h2 id="the-gpl-compliance-project-for-linux-developers">The GPL Compliance

  Project for Linux Developers</h2>

<p>In May 2012, Software Freedom Conservancy

    Compliance Project for Linux Developers</a> 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

  projects in demanding widespread GPL compliance. This coalition of Linux

  developers works with Conservancy to enforce the GPL for the rights of

  Linux users everywhere — particularly consumers who own electronic

  devices. We accept violation reports from the general public, and

  prioritize enforcement in those classes of devices where we believe that we

  can do the most good to help achieve GPL compliance that will increase

  software freedom for the maximum number of device users.</p>

<h2 id="the-need-for-litigation">The Need for Litigation</h2>

<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

  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

  some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project creation and

  development.</p>

<p>Conservancy plans to select a specific class of device. Upon achieving

  compliant source releases in that subindustry through GPL enforcement,

{% endblock %}