SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @01:31AM from the defending-free-software dept.

An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the Software Freedom Conservancy is expanding its GPL compliance efforts. Quoting Bradley Kuhn: "This new program is an outgrowth of the debate that happened over the last few months regarding Conservancy's GPL compliance efforts. Specifically, I noticed that, buried in the FUD over the last four months regarding GPL compliance, there was one key criticism that was valid and couldn't be ignored: Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems. Linux is a central component of such work, and the BusyBox developers agreed wholeheartedly that having some Linux developers involved with compliance would be very helpful. Conservancy has addressed this issue by building a broad coalition of copyright holders in many different projects who seek to work on compliance with Conservancy, including not just Linux and BusyBox, but other projects as well." The anonymous reader adds: "This news was also discussed in the latest episode of the Free as in Freedom Oggcast." Update: 05/30 14:20 GMT by U L: It may not be entirely clear, but several Linux developers have assigned copyright so that the Conservancy can pursue violations for them.

20 of 104 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Must be involved.... by gr8_phk · 2012-05-30 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems.

I believe they MUST be involved. As a 3rd party SFLC really has no say ( IIRC the legal term is "standing".). IANAL but If someone strips the GPL from some code and puts that code in their product, the copyright holders are the only one who can legitimately make a complaint. The users may notice, but their rights to source code are defined in the GPL - which is absent in such a case.
1. Re:Must be involved.... by bug1 · 2012-05-30 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "It is thanks to the SFLC that companies are afraid to use GPL code in their products... they think, quite reasonably, that it just isn't worth the hassle. Which is better, buy a licence for non-free software (fixed, one off cost) or use free software and pay for lawyers to be sure you are in compliance?"
  Its better to use free software and pay for lawyers, because;
  - You get the source code.
  - You _should_ have a lawyer review non-free software licences also, so its not an extra cost.
  If corporations are afraid to use GPL software because they are terrified they might have to _share_ something then there are little or no benefits to the Free software community from them being involved.
  i.e. The invisible hand will slap down such corporations.
2. Re:Must be involved.... by jbolden · 2012-05-30 02:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The creator of Busybox just got sick of helping the SFLC line its pockets by discouraging the use of free software. I think in the end he disowned Busybox and started a new project to do the same thing, under the BSD licence.
  Just in case anyone is paying attention to the AC here... The creator of Busybox was Bruce Perens who went on to be the 2nd head of Debian where he authored the Free Software Guidelines. He worked with HP on their move into the Linux community and founded several more Linux projects. He currently works with the government of Norway in a Linux related role.
3. Re:Must be involved.... by Hatta · 2012-05-30 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Paying for a proprietary software license is no guarantee that you are in compliance. Even buying the software puts you at risk of a BSA raid. All it takes is for one employee to install the software on a machine not covered by the license, and you're at risk of serious fines.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Must be involved.... by dvNull · 2012-05-30 03:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Paying for a proprietary software license is no guarantee that you are in compliance. Even buying the software puts you at risk of a BSA raid. All it takes is for one employee to install the software on a machine not covered by the license, and you're at risk of serious fines.
  Actually, all it takes is to not have the receipts or have purchased the software from ebay or Amazon. From what I understand , BSA does not consider software purchased from places like Amazon or Ebay as legit.
5. Re:Must be involved.... by Microlith · 2012-05-30 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But nonetheless it is hypocritical for someone at Sony, a company whose executives start frothing at the mouth when they get wind of someone violating their copyrights, to lead an effort to make it easier for others to violate GPL licenses and get away with it. It's good for them but not for you.
6. Re:Must be involved.... by Microlith · 2012-05-30 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.
  They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.
Oggcast by Dot.Com.CEO · 2012-05-30 01:55 · Score: 2

Oggcast is a damn stupid word. Please kill it with fire.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
This is a good thing by jonwil · 2012-05-30 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.
1. Re:This is a good thing by jbolden · 2012-05-30 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  How many people who support the GPL enforcement support pirating commercial music? Most GPL advocates would like to see weaker copyright laws knowing this would equally to GPL software and music.
2. Re:This is a good thing by MetalliQaZ · 2012-05-30 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  I get it.
  Copyright is good if it means I get source code or something else I want for free.
  Copyright is bad if it means I can't get music that I want for free but instead have to pay for it.
  The simple-minded "Average Joe" speaks up. *sigh*
  Slashdotters have a problem with the ENFORCEMENT of copyright by Big Content; We don't have a problem with copyright in general. They use the legal system as a weapon against the citizens it is supposed to protect. They routinely assert rights over their content that they don't have (or are covered by fair use), and they make broad, unsubstantiated claims that are designed to cloud the judgement of the public and foolish lawmakers. One of those claims is usually that anyone who is against their systematic deconstruction of individual rights and liberties is pro-piracy. You seem to have bought that one hook-line-and-sinker.
  -d
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
GPL2 vs GPL3 by bzipitidoo · 2012-05-30 02:29 · Score: 2

More FUD! I really do not see what Linus's problem is with the GPL3. What it does is add formal protection for 2 sneaky ways to violate the spirit of the GPL that GPL2 lacks. It is also *more* permissive, allowing more ways to comply with the requirements.
The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.
More serious is the other problem, patents. Microsoft and Novell came up with a way to restrict access to software via patent law rather than copyright law. They'd add some code to free software, then once it had gained some adoption, they'd bring to the surface submarine patents they have on that software, for rent seeking and anti-competitive purposes. GPL3 prevents that by forbidding anyone who contributes code from seeking patent royalties for their contributions. Lest you think that's not a problem, consider SCO.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
1. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by vlm · 2012-05-30 02:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  More FUD! I really do not see what Linus's problem is with the GPL3. What it does is ...
  
  ... require eighty bazillion historical authors (Linus didn't write every line of code) unfortunately including, I believe, the estate of some dead people and the current IP owners of some dead companies, to relicense their past work as GPL3 or have someone do a psuedo-cleanroom reimplementation of the GPL2 code.
  Yes, the GPL3 is better than the GPL2, a little. But linux wasn't written by one dude last week.
  Linus could, if he so desired, declare he will no longer accept GPL2 patches or code, and in probably just 10 or 20 years there would be no remaining GPL2 code in the kernel, probably. Aside from whatever personal views Linus has about the GPL3, re licensing linux just isn't going to happen, at least not any time soon.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by Microlith · 2012-05-30 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  As long as Hollywood wants DRM, the ability to play Hollywood content is more important than GPLv3 licensing.
  Spoken like a true apologist. The correct answer is fuck Hollywood and their customer-hating ways.
3. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-05-30 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.
  I believe hardware falls outside the purview of the GPL. All I'm concerned with is that the source code remains available for someone else's benefit and that people can't take my GPL code, make improvements, and distribute those improvements without the source code. This is important so that everyone including myself continue to have access to the source code and can benefit from all the changes. As far as I'm concerned the GPL is to enforce source code sharing and insuring that the code remains available. If someone wants to perform some integrity checks before running code on their hardware then fine I won't purchase that hardware.
  However I do draw the line at firmware required to perform the improved functions. The GPL should prevent the need for a certain brand hardware to perform a function. The inability to take advantage of the source modifications due to system calls being implemented in proprietary firmware solely to circumvent the spirit and terms of the GPL should be prohibited and viewed as a GPL violation.
  
  More serious is the other problem, patents. Microsoft and Novell came up with a way to restrict access to software via patent law rather than copyright law. They'd add some code to free software, then once it had gained some adoption, they'd bring to the surface submarine patents they have on that software, for rent seeking and anti-competitive purposes. GPL3 prevents that by forbidding anyone who contributes code from seeking patent royalties for their contributions. Lest you think that's not a problem, consider SCO.
  I agree.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
4. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by rtfa-troll · 2012-05-30 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  Heck, even an edict came down along the lines of "No GPLv3 software will be approved - don't even try".
  That's great for me to hear. You don't sound like the kind of company that has much of value to contribute. We just got permission to contribute back code to the external GPLv3 project we use. This is going to be another story like 10 years ago. Back then lots of companies were banning GPL, or even all open source software. The ones that could use (for example Apple, Google, IBM and Facebook) it had an edge which was crucial in many of them pulling ahead.
  If what you say is true, GPLv3 becomes the differentiator license; the one which lets go ahead companies like mine cooperate with other similar companies who provide real benefit, whilst keeping the code away from another group who become the losers.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
5. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by rtfa-troll · 2012-05-30 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  For something like a set top box, the manufacturer is fully justified in locking it so that customers cannot .....
  How the hell have we got to this distopian nightmare. These are the people who bought something from you. They own the set top box. They are in the privacy of their own homes. What they do with their own stuff in their own homes is none of your bloody business and you are certainly not "fully justified" in setting up systems to interfere with it. People are fully justified in taking serious action against people who do that kind of stuff.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
6. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by DragonWriter · 2012-05-30 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  No one has ever explained to me just why a company wants to Tivoize Linux?
  The explanation B2B free software vendors gave to the FSF was apparently good enough that the FSF restricted the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3, in its final form, to what amounts to consumer products.
  B2C vendors weren't as concerned, as long as the license explicitly allowed two things (that it does): termination of any support responsibility and disconnection of modified-software devices from networks when the network owner (even when it is also the device supplier) doesn't like what the modified software does.
  
  How does keeping me from changing the code on a device I've purchased help the manufacturer's bottom line?
  Some parents might prefer products that they would use in their homes to not have published mechanisms available that would be accessible to parties other than the original vendor for replacing the manufacturer-supplied software, but might still prefer that the vendor software updates could be applied. The GPLv3 either requires the provision of software installation information for consumer products, or that the product not be updateable at all, which means that, to the extent that this preference exists, it can only be met with non-GPLv3 software.
7. Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 by unixisc · 2012-05-30 15:05 · Score: 2
  
  As zzatz pointed out below, content owners want control over delivery, and are okay with a recording being watched, but not distributed to other media. Locking down the system is a part of how it is achieved. If TiVo didn't control that part, they can say goodbye to the chances of any content being delivered to those boxes via the receiver, amd the whole purpose of making those boxes in the first place is defeated. Unlike the FSF, TiVo is in a business, not a cult.
Read the GPLv3 by DragonWriter · 2012-05-30 11:43 · Score: 2

I've never read about the FSF making any distinctions b/w business and consumer users
See the GPLv3, Sec. 6. Note, there, that the "anti-tivoization" provisions only apply to what the GPLv3 calls "User Products", which are, essentially, what would in normal parlance be consumer products as opposed to business products.

All they care about is the liberation of software.

That's what the advertisements say, but that's not what the license says. Which is the problem with the license.