<p>Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy

  <a href="enforcement-strategy.html">continues our efforts in that

  replicate <a href="/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement">the

  effort <strong>after</strong> enforcement occurs to turn the compliant

  source release into a viable alternative firmware for the platform.</p>

  of their own technology is a powerful proposition that has rarely been

  demonstrated.</p>

  non-technical users can replace the software on their devices and benefit

  from custom, community-controlled software. Technical users are more likely

  to contribute knowing their efforts will be meaningful.</p>

  yield increased responsiveness by violators throughout the industry. (A

  similar outcome occurred after our BusyBox-related litigation in 2006.)

  This expected change in behavior will open opportunities to replicate the

  will be necessary; most IoT products have an 18 month lifecycle, so we seek

  to quickly identify the right subindustry, gain compliance there, and move

  on to the next phase.</p>

<p>While we’ve long hoped that volunteers would take up compliant sources

  obtained in our GPL enforcement efforts and build alternative firmware

  such projects is not guaranteed and exceedingly rare.</p>

<p>Traditionally, our community has relied exclusively on volunteers to take

  creation and development. (In our last fiscal year, Conservancy funded 160

  contributors to work on FOSS.)</p>

  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.</p>

<p>Finally, Conservancy will be prepared and willing to recognize temporary

  failure and setbacks in a particular subindustry and pivot quickly to

  choosing a different class of devices. This project is ambitious, and we’ll

{% endblock %}