{% 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>

    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

    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

  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

  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

  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

<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 %}