The Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity - registered in New York that continues it work in the are of important + 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.
@@ -24,7 +29,7 @@ the router, but Linksys and Cisco had failed to provide source code or any offer for source code to its customers. -A coalition formed including organizations and individuals — including +
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 @@ -32,7 +37,7 @@ 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 + 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 @@ -115,10 +120,10 @@
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 - applications not licensed under GPL, the kernel (and many other system + applications not licensed under GPL, the kernel and many other system utilities routinely used in embedded systems, such as Conservancy’s BusyBox - project) are under that license (or similar copyleft licenses such as the - LGPL). These licenses require device markers to provide complete, + project, are under that license (or similar copyleft licenses such as the + LGPL). These licenses require device makers to provide complete, 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 @@ -139,9 +144,9 @@ solutions. E-recyclers like Freegeek do this regularly for desktop and laptop machines with GNU/Linux distributions like Debian, and - with OpenWRT for wireless routers. We seek to assure they can do this for + with OpenWRT for wireless routers. We seek to ensure they can do this for other types of electronic products. However, without the complete, - corresponding source code and the scripts to control its compilation and + corresponding source code, including the scripts to control its compilation and 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 @@ -168,7 +173,7 @@
“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 control of their + 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 @@ -182,7 +187,7 @@ Project for Linux Developers
In May 2012, Software Freedom Conservancy - formed The GPL + formed The GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers 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 @@ -286,13 +291,13 @@ 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 - FOSS projects require an experienced charity to initiate and jump start + FOSS projects require an experienced charity to initiate and jump-start some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project creation and development.
Conservancy plans to select a specific class of device. Upon achieving compliant source releases in that subindustry through GPL enforcement, - Conservancy will launch an alternative - firmware project for that class of device.
+ Conservancy will launch an alternative + firmware project for that class of device. {% endblock %}