SFLC Finds One New GPL Violation Per Day

eldavojohn writes "In July, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation but how often does this actually happen? Sunday, Brad M. Kuhn (tech director at the SFLC) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 he has been finding about one per day. So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news? Brad offers sage wisdom; surprisingly, he recommends, 'Don't go public first. Back around late 1999, when I found my first GPL violation from scratch, I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community. I'm glad that I didn't do that, because I've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators, and make resolution tougher.' Public shame is evidently not always the best answer. Ars has a few more details and notes that (in accordance with Brad's advice) lawsuits are usually a dead last resort."

Comments

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[asdf7890]

GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.

GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?

Got GPLed code in your project by accident? Then you didn't do due diligence properly. Your fault, not the GPL's fault.

Got GPLed code in your project by no fault of your own (bad contractor, used a library or other source that itself broke GPL, or some such reason)? That does sometimes happen and here you need to discuss it with the owner of the affected code.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Rennt]

You may choose to define "free" however you like (this is an acknowledged problem with the term), however when the context is free software, the Free Software Definition is fairly well established.

• run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
• study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
• redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
• improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

You are, of course, also free NOT to release your own work under the GPL. Meanwhile, imposing your sense of freedom on others reduces their freedoms no matter which license you choose.

Now you did not actually reveal what your ideal "free" licence is, but I will share with you Rennt's Law: "The probability that anyone arguing that the GPL is not "free" is really just pissed that BSD is not as popular is exactly 1".

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[TheRaven64]

BSD and MIT, yes. Apache, no. The GPLv3 has a specific exemption for the clauses in the Apache license that are not compatible with the GPLv2. You can not use GPLv2 code and Apache Licensed code in the same project.

Re:closed up

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK its pretty much only the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea that considers those patents valid, the rest of the world doesn't. (The vaguely unspecified countries in europe would be all EU members AFAIK)

Ofcourse those countries are important enough to make it a problem, but personally i don't mind just ignoring the patents and simply not distribute anything to those countries, (If anyone wants to distribute software in the US he can hire a lawyer, i'd rather not care though)