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

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.

Comments

Must be involved....

[gr8_phk]

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.

Re:Must be involved....

[bug1]

"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.

Re:Must be involved....

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Must be involved....

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Must be involved....

[dvNull]

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.

Re:Must be involved....

[Microlith]

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.

This is a good thing

[jonwil]

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.

Re:GPL2 vs GPL3

[vlm]

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.