The Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity - registered in New York. Founded in 2006, Conservancy helps people take control - of their computing by growing the software freedom movement, supporting - community-driven alternatives to proprietary software, and defending free - software with practical initiatives. Conservancy accomplishes these goals - with various initiatives including fiscal sponsorship, licensing and project - governance policy, and public advocacy. Some of Conservancy's most important - licensing policy work involves defending and upholding the rights of - software users and consumers under copyleft licenses, such as the GPL.
+As existing donors and supporters know, the Software Freedom Conservancy + is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity registered in New York, and Conservancy + helps people take control of their computing by growing the software + freedom movement, supporting community-driven alternatives to proprietary + software, and defending free software with practical initiatives. + Conservancy accomplishes these goals with various initiatives, including + defending and upholding the rights of software users and consumers under + copyleft licenses, such as the GPL.
A coalition formed made up of organizations and individuals — including 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. Bradley - M. Kuhn, 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 + M. Kuhn, 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 process of GPL enforcement, compelled Linksys to release an almost-GPL-compliant source release for the WRT54G. A group of volunteers - quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT based on that source + quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT 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 + 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 + 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.
@@ -58,12 +57,12 @@ create hardware that fully supports OpenWRT’s features and improvements (such as dealing with the - dreaded “bufferbloat” bugs). This interplay between the hobbyist + dreaded “bufferbloat” bugs). This interplay between the hobbyist community and for-profit ventures promotes innovation in technology. Without both permission and the ability to build and modify the software on their devices, the hobbyist community - shrinks. Eventually, instead of encouraging people to experiment with their - devices, hobbyists are limited by the oft-arbitrary manufacturer-imposed + shrinks. Without intervention to assure companies respect the hobbyist + community, hobbyists are limited by the oft-arbitrary manufacturer-imposed restraints in the OEM firmware. OpenWRT saved the wireless router market from this disaster; we seek to help other embedded electronic subindustries avoid that fate. The authors of GPL’d software chose that license so its @@ -87,8 +86,8 @@ firmware that works on that era of Samsung televisions and allows consumers to modify and upgrade their firmware using FOSS. -Harald Welte also continued his efforts during the early and mid-2000s - after the Linksys enforcement through +
Harald Welte also continued his efforts during the early and mid-2000s, + after the Linksys enforcement, through his gpl-violations.org project. Harald successfully sued many companies (mostly in the wireless router industry) in Germany to achieve compliance and yield source @@ -97,25 +96,25 @@
In recent years, embedded systems technology has expanded beyond wireless - routers to so-called “Internet of Things” devices designed for connectivity - with other devices in the home and to the “Cloud”. Consumer electronics - companies now feature and differentiate products based on Internet - connectivity, and related services. Conservancy has seen Linux-based - firmwares on refrigerators, baby monitors, virtual assistants, soundbars, - doorbells, home security cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, - and televisions.
- -This wide deployment of general purpose computers into mundane household - devices raises profound privacy and consumer rights + routers to so-called “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices designed for + connectivity with other devices in the home and to the “Cloud”. Consumer + electronics companies now feature and differentiate products based on + Internet connectivity and related services. Conservancy has seen + Linux-based firmwares on refrigerators, baby monitors, virtual assistants, + soundbars, doorbells, home security cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV + receivers, and televisions.
+ +This wide deployment of general purpose computers into + mundane household devices raises profound privacy and consumer rights implications. Home security cameras are routinely compromised — invading the privacy and security of individual homes. Even when companies succeed in keeping out third parties, consumers are pressured - by camera makers to automatically upload their videos to local + by camera makers to automatically upload their videos to local police. Televisions routinely spy - on consumers for the purposes of marketing and massive data - collection.
+ on consumers for the purposes of marketing and massive data + collection.There is one overarching irony to this growing dystopia: nearly all these devices are based primarily on software licensed under the GPL: most @@ -159,21 +158,22 @@ 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 - devices that run Linux — should give opportunities for young hobbyists to - quickly explore and improve the devices they depend on in their every day - 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.
- -“Internet of Things” firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the - vendor of the hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and - inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and loss of control of their + devices that run Linux — should give opportunities for young + hobbyists to quickly explore and improve the devices they depend on in + their every day 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.
+ +IoT firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the vendor of the + hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and inevitably leads + to invasions of the public’s privacy and loss of control of their 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 @@ -212,24 +212,23 @@ goodwill. After the BusyBox lawsuit settled, we observed a slow move toward intentional non-compliance throughout the embedded electronics industry. Companies use delay and “hardball” pre-litigation tactics to - drain the limited resources available for enforcement, which we faced for - example - in the - VMware violation. While VMware ultimately complied with the GPL, they + drain the limited resources available for enforcement, which we faced (for + example) in the + VMware violation. While VMware ultimately complied with the GPL, they did so by reengineering the product and removing Linux from it — and only after the product was nearing end-of-life.
Conservancy has recently completed an evaluation of the industry’s use of Linux in embedded products. Our findings are disheartening and require - action. Across the entire industry, most major manufacturers almost flaunt - their failure to comply with the GPL. In our private negotiations, pursuant - to - our Principles - of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, GPL violators stall, avoid, + action. Across the entire industry, most major manufacturers almost flaunt + their failure to comply with the GPL. In our private negotiations, + pursuant to + our Principles + of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, GPL violators stall, avoid, delay and generally refuse to comply with the GPL. Their disdain for the - rights of their customers is often palpable. Their attitude is almost - universal: “if you think we’re really violating the GPL, then go ahead and - sue us. Otherwise, you’re our lowest priority.”
+ rights of their customers is often palpable. Their attitude is almost + universal:if you think we’re really violating the GPL, then go ahead and + sue us. Otherwise, you’re our lowest priority.
Conservancy has many violation matters that we have pursued during the - last year where we expect compliance is impossible without litigation. We + last year where we expect compliance is impossible without litigation. We are poised to select — from among the many violations in the embedded electronics space — a representative example and take action in USA courts against a violator who has failed to properly provide source code @@ -254,28 +253,27 @@
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 assures the rights and software freedoms of hobbyists who seek - full control and modifiability of devices they own. With the benefit of - this grant, Conservancy plans to accelerate these plans in 2020 and to keep - the public informed at every stage of the process.
+ strategy. We believe this will bring to fruition the promise of copyleft: + a license that assures the rights and software freedoms of hobbyists who + seek full control and modifiability of devices they own. With the benefit + of this grant, Conservancy plans to accelerate these plans in 2020 and to + keep the public informed at every stage of the process.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. Conservancy is the primary charitable watchdog of - GPL compliance for Linux-based devices. We seek to use litigation as a tool - in a broader course of action to continue our work in this regard. We - expect and welcome that the high profile nature of litigation will inspire - more device owners to report violations to us. We expect we’ll learn about - classes of 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.
+ of work necessary to ensure compliance and the software freedom it brings. + Conservancy is the primary charitable watchdog of GPL compliance for + Linux-based devices. We seek to use litigation as a tool in a broader + course of action to continue our work in this regard. We expect and + welcome that the high profile nature of litigation will inspire more device + owners to report violations to us. We expect we’ll learn about classes of + 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.