Friendlier GPL-Enforcement Permission Proposed By Linux Kernel Developers (kroah.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Friendlier GPL-Enforcement Permission Proposed By Linux Kernel Developers (kroah.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday October 21, 2017 @02:34AM from the pull-request dept.

The former Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation -- and Slashdot user #41121 -- contacted Slashdot with this announcement. bkuhn -- now president of the Software Freedom Conservancy -- writes: Software Freedom Conservancy, home of the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers, publicly applauded today the proposal of the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement, which adds a per-copyright-holder-opt-in additional permission to the termination provisions of Linux's GPLv2-only license.
It apparently addresses a developer who "made claims based on ambiguities in the GPL-2.0 that no one in our community has ever considered part of compliance," according to a statement from some of the kernel developers who drafted the statement. While the kernel community has always supported enforcement efforts to bring companies into compliance, we have never even considered enforcement for the purpose of extracting monetary gain... [W]e are aware of activity that has resulted in payments of at least a few million Euros. We are also aware that these actions, which have continued for at least four years, have threatened the confidence in our ecosystem. Because of this, and to help clarify what the majority of Linux kernel community members feel is the correct way to enforce our license, the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation has worked together with lawyers in our community, individual developers, and many companies that participate in the development of, and rely on Linux, to draft a Kernel Enforcement Statement to help address both this specific issue we are facing today, and to help prevent any future issues like this from happening again. It adopts the same termination provisions we are all familiar with from GPL-3.0 as an Additional Permission giving companies confidence that they will have time to come into compliance if a failure is identified.

94 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Monetary gain by PPH · 2017-10-21 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fines and penalties aren't always about pure monetary gain. They are a means of punishment for wrongdoing and a way to dissuade others from engaging in the same behavior. Absent payment as a penalty, I suppose we could take the board of directors of a company found in violation of the GPL and have them shot.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Monetary gain by tietokone-olmi · 2017-10-21 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed, enforcement is too cheap if it's only a cost of doing business the next time around.
2. Re:Monetary gain by sa666_666 · 2017-10-21 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Probably responding to a troll, but for one thing, as has been stated many times in the past, Slashdot is not one single-group-think entity. Plenty of people here respect licensing of all types, whether it's for the Linux kernel or Hollywood movies. Don't paint everyone with the same brush.
  I personally work on and maintain several GPLv2 projects, and I expect the license to be followed. And I respect licensing for movies and other software too.
3. Re:Monetary gain by jonsmirl · 2017-10-21 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is a matter of degree. Making a business of copyright violation should be quickly shut down and punished by the legal system. Individuals violating copyright is a business model problem and should be addressed by providing the copyright materials to the individuals in a form that they will accept - such as streaming music and Netflix.
  It is simple to comply with the GPL if you want to. It is another level to willfully disregard it and make a business around that disregard. So it is fine with me to give a grace period to come into compliance, but then if you choose not to comply either honor the terms and lose your license or else face the legal consequences.
4. Re:Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you need to go back to your dictionary? Prevailing != all. And you are most definitely in the minority compared to the prevailing view.
5. Re: Monetary gain by TuballoyThunder · 2017-10-21 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  You expect people should comply with the GPL and movie/music copyright holders should adjust.
  If you support the GPL then you should support how a copyright holder chooses to distribute their work. On the other hand, if you believe piracy is an acceptable response to restrictive distribution then you should support GPL violations.
  Many people will argue that piracy is acceptable and that the GPL should always be enforced.
6. Re:Monetary gain by Trailer+Trash · 2017-10-21 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  Fines and penalties aren't always about pure monetary gain. They are a means of punishment for wrongdoing and a way to dissuade others from engaging in the same behavior. Absent payment as a penalty, I suppose we could take the board of directors of a company found in violation of the GPL and have them shot.
  Agreed. And in some of the cases the offender needs to be taught a lesson as they were flagrantly disregarding the GPL even after being warned repeatedly.
  I have no problem "going light" on someone who makes an honest mistake, but there are a lot of dishonest nonmistakes that need to be handled a little heavier.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
7. Re: Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:54 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  If you kill and eat animals, you should kill and eat people also. Issues should resolve to black and white only, no shades of grey.
8. Re:Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Making a business of copyright violation should be quickly shut down and punished by the legal system. Individuals violating copyright is a business model problem and should be addressed by providing the copyright materials to the individuals in a form that they will accept - such as streaming music and Netflix.
  The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. “Give me everything I want how I want it but you must follow only my strict rules with no concession.” No one wonder few people want to deal with the morass of GPL licensing.
9. Re: Monetary gain by jonsmirl · 2017-10-21 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Making a business of copyright violation is wrong. I'm also ok with individuals violating the GPL among a few friend too. The custom of sharing among a few friends has been with us for thousands of years. The operative would here is 'few'. The societal problem is commercial scale copyright infringement, not individual.
  If you have a business model that needs broad involvement of the police force to make it succeed, then you need a new business model because the taxpayers are not going support you co-opting the public police force to push your crazy business model. The police arresting a few commercial scale infringers is ok, the police arresting half the population is not ok.
10. Re:Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  flagrantly disregarding the GPL even after being warned repeatedly.
  Does the Business Software Alliance require that copyright violations be "flagrant" or issue "repeated warnings"? No, they do not. If they get any hint of copyright violation, standard procedure for non-flagrant non-repeated violators is to demand a self-audit, then require double-purchase of all the missing licenses.
  There should be sufficient deterrent. $0 is probably not sufficient because that is literally no incentive. It's "better to ask forgiveness than permission" terms, literally, and all the enforcement cost falls on volunteers so we do not even get funding to investigate and prosecute. For a startup, "we will ruin your company" is probably the only thing that's sufficient to create a pattern of compliance because they have high risk tolerance. For anyone else, BSA seems to have things running steady, and I agree with OP that it would be better if the path from noncompliance to compliance were somewhat predictable.
  But the status quo is not acceptable. Violation in the embedded sector is positively rampant.
  These developers are over-conceding because they want contract work. It is like Obama's executive-order immigration amnesty that should be unconstitutional. They have turned GPL into BSD by underprosecuting, but in a way that strongly rewards rule-breakers. Why? They may have turned a blind eye, or at least failed to report, "flagrant disregard" within their past employers, which resets what seems normal to them. They may, as reflexively moral creatures, feel a twinge of primordial shame at "biting the hand that feeds them." Or they may through torturous logic (similar to immigration amnesty) have convinced themselves there will be more work for them if GPL is reduced to BSD.
  Maybe it's the right path, but I don't trust the motivations or likely thought processes of the people advocating this path.
  BSD made an even more extreme choice. Their license already allows withholding source, but it includes an advertising clause that requires all advertisements of a product containing BSD must mention BSD. This is the clause incompatible with the GPL. Then there is a tamer documentation clause that just requires credit in an appendix or something. They chose not to enforce even this appendix clause. Consequently, they're unable to advocate their project for embedded work, because clients don't know how popular it is. However they "don't want to antagonise anyone" so they let the "give credit in appendix" clause slide instead of collecting all appendixes which mention BSD into a gallery of users they could show to potential future users. This experiment has run past completion, and the result is that BSD is irrelevant in the embedded space for (a) lack of credibility, (b) failure to collect upstream contributions because "allowed to withhold source," both relative to Linux.
  Do not preemtively concede hoping your opponent will respond generously. Do not talk yourself into circuitous things because you are conflict-adverse.
11. Re: Monetary gain by ChunderDownunder · 2017-10-21 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Religion neatly demolished your vegetarian argument 2000 years ago.
  Christ is both the good shepherd and the sacrificial lamb as symbolised in the sacraments of the Eucharist
12. Re: Monetary gain by sg_oneill · 2017-10-21 05:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Christ is both the good shepherd and the sacrificial lamb as symbolised in the sacraments of the Eucharist
  Hmmmmm. Tasty tasty christ burger. Only at Crispy Christs, home of the Saute Savior
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
13. Re: Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  What do the taxpayers have to do with anything? In the current system, corporations pay the politicians and politicians send the police to use whatever force is needed (including lethal) to obtain compliance. Elegant and simple. All the politicians have to do is give the taxpayers (idiots) 2 sides to endlessly fight over so they never use their brains.
14. Re:Monetary gain by tepples · 2017-10-21 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  [Pandering to infringers of copyright in GPL works] is like Obama's executive-order immigration amnesty that should be unconstitutional.
  If a child is kidnapped by his own parents and smuggled by his parents into the United States, what recourse ought the child to have?
15. Re: Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Only 1/4 pounds? No Szechuan sauce? Lame.
16. Re:Monetary gain by UnknownSoldier · 2017-10-21 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  > If itâ(TM)s okay to violate Hollywood movie company copyrights (as is the prevailing view here)
  Apples to Oranges comparison.
  While I don't entirely buy it the point of the argument is this:
  * No-one is price-gouging with Linux
  * Sticking it to "The Man" is 1 of two tactics for over-priced regurgitated movies. (The other is to abstain.)
  With Linux you _already_ have pretty generous terms.
  If Hollywood accepted a "Pay-What-You-Want" model I think more people would respect their copyright. But instead we end up with Bullshit that making a backup _requires_ one to break DRM --- that tells me they are greedy fucks. Why would someone respect their copyright again?
  CD prices were supposed to drop too, but we're still waiting for _that_ to happen ...
17. Re:Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  The FSF has always had a great approach to enforcement.
  When they speak to companies - the say they don't want money/damages. They just want you to comply with the license. Once the company realises that, the conversation changes from a guarded confrontational one to a cooperative one... in most cases. The FSF has a long-standing reputation for this... for not tricking companies or shaking them down - and being genuinely interested in working to reach compliance. It's paid off in goodwill as GPL software spread.
18. Re:Monetary gain by sa666_666 · 2017-10-21 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Your opinion, not fact. I know what the word 'prevailing' means; I just disagree that it's the case here.
19. Re:Monetary gain by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Kind of different, GNU do not really seek actual money in the first place, they do seek collaboration in producing more code (yes, sometimes you will find people that think that there are things more valuable than money), in some cases some companies get a lot of profit from public code and never give back to the community that help them to success and for them money seems to be the only language they understand... and oddly enough the legal system actually forces people to pay for accesing the judicial system.
  Think of it as this: Some people worked making chairs so people in the community could use it, but some people took theose chairs, painted them and put their logo and started selling them without giving anything to those people that made those chairs...
  Also, there are concerns about companies trying to patent other people's code, there was a time when someone tried to register the Linux trademark (after Linux success), that forced Linus to challenge the registration and trademark the name itself; Ther same happens all the time with free code, some companies will try to not only include them in their products but also use the legal system so others can't use it.
  In a society where people are required to pay for everything, there are lots of companies that take so much from the public and give nearly nothing back.
  Code is not the same as information, information can be designs, articles, research, etc. Actual code is more like an implementation based on some information.
  GPL helps to keep base code free and growing, you can use it for anything you want but you should give back something to all those people that helped you to achieve something, it doesn't have to be money, for them code and designs are better.
20. Re: Monetary gain by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-21 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Many people will argue that piracy is acceptable and that the GPL should always be enforced.
  Many people choose to be selectively outraged depending on whether a situation is in line with, or in conflict against, their own philosophical sensibilities. We see it with politics, laws, personal behavior, etc. all the time... so it’s not surprising we also observe it when it comes to intellectual property.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
21. Re: Monetary gain by Wootery · 2017-10-22 10:28 · Score: 1
  I see three factors:
  
  Health. Human-compatible parasites can be communicated by eating human flesh. The risk is reduced if you only eat other animals.
  Association with murder
  Our emotional attachments to the dead (it seems revolting, disrespectful, etc)
22. Re:Monetary gain by Bengie · 2017-10-24 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  $15 for a CD with an hour of music or a BluRay+DVD combo of a 2 hour movie for $7 in the bargain bin. How are CDs so damn expensive?
I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:23 · Score: 0, Informative

but switched over to be more in favour of the BSD/ISC/MIT licences because they are maximally free. The GPL is largely unfriendly to corporate and academic interests. Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology. More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way, even if some would take the results and monetise it. There is nothing wrong with proprietary code, guys. Not everything needs to be open source. It's preferabe, yes, but not always possible.
1. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology. More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences
  tl;dr "the jews" (a.k.a. not actually jews but "neoliberal globalists advocating extreme inequality and close cooperation of governance and business") control everything.
  
  because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
  This is a very weird sentence. They "realise" that they have an obligation to do something whether they think it's right or not because it was a condition of hire? Why would they realise that instead of simply being ordered to do it?
  
  Not everything needs to be open source. It's preferabe, yes, but not always possible.
  If one's decisions are motivated by an aim to social responsibility, leaving a positive legacy, personally, as an obligation of the academy in all its work, and as an obligation of public funds, not motivated by orders, why should one not use public money to do what is "preferable" to the public? Assuming you believe as I do that the GPL is "preferable" because it advances the art furthest and produces the most long-term human good, why would you voluntarily choose something less good?
  This is some weird kind of double-think you are using to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
2. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  I used to like the GPL but switched over to be more in favour of the BSD/ISC/MIT licences because they are maximally free.
  If your concern is maximum freedom for the developer, then yes. Pragmatically, though, there's a lot more potential developers with the GPL than with BSD/ISC/MIT licenses. Also, maximal freedom includes the freedom to not issue updates, for things like KRACK.
  
  The GPL is largely unfriendly to corporate and academic interests.
  That's largely untrue. Most of what corporations do involve internal software for which the license rarely matters. The only thing they generally care about is having a working solution to their problem. Beyond that, yes, vertically and horizontally integrated companies with many subsidiaries have to start worrying about licenses, at which point they're likely to go commercial (or freeware) because they don't trust the BSD any more than the GPL. Ie, they don't want source code and want someone else to blame if copyright violations are found.
  As for academic interests, that's even trickier. On the one hand, yes, a large part of academia today has turned into figuring out how to take a research project and spinning it off to a business that will provide royalties to the host university. The flip side of that is academia requires transparency and wants an ability to track attribution for things that can't be directly monetized but for which the prestige will encourage more funding to the university. So, they want a combination of BSD or GPL as appropriate.
  
  Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
  Well, "need" is a strong word, but I can certainly understand the strong desire for it. The opposite side of this is that pragmatically going proprietary can bite you in the ass, even with GPL software. Look no further than Android.
  
  More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way, even if some would take the results and monetise it.
  I don't think it has anything to do with realizing anything except the last part: the researches are the ones most capable of quickly going to market with the code, and they only BSD license certain parts of the code that alone aren't enough to make a product. I have no qualms about that, but this is more about enlightened self-interest, not some recognition of a duty from receiving public money.
  
  There is nothing wrong with proprietary code, guys. Not everything needs to be open source. It's preferabe, yes, but not always possible.
  I would counter that as IoT and just general internet devices become more common--as if they weren't common enough, already--the pragmatic truth is that proprietarism, whether it's in the actual code or in the nature of locking down a system as a whole against modification, is an evil that will do us all great, systemic harm. Right now, I have many devices that are un-upgradable which are vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. The only responsible thing for me to do is never connect them to the internet. Yet the pragmatic truth is that many devices are heavily useless without internet.
  And this doesn't even delve into the area of many devices I or others have that I likely am not aware of wildly published vulnerabilities. Even spending substantial effort and thought, the current security vulnerability ecosystem is an avalanche of reports, fixes, workarounds, and wontfix. It is to the point that the "safe" thing to do is basically discard all one's internet devices every year--which is an ecological nightmare--and only buy reputable brands which come pre-loaded with all security patches. And that
3. Re:I used to like the GPL by Dutch+Gun · 2017-10-21 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think both BSD and GPL style licenses have their place in the world. A BSD-style license is useful for those who wish their code to be used as broadly as possible, whether by commercial or open source. A GPL license is appropriate for those who are first and foremost advocates of open source, and want maximum protection to ensure their code is only used in open source products.
  This simply reflects a different intent or priorities of the authors. You hear slogans like "GPL is about user freedom", which is just shorthand for open source advocates believing that, with some good reason, that open source products are more consumer-friendly than close source. Yet the flipside to that is the simple truth that many software products that people find valuable seem to flourish as commercial products.
  For my own open source libraries, I release them under the MIT license. I appreciate it's "do what you want with it" simplicity, since my goal is not open source advocacy, but simply to make a library that anyone might find useful. But I also appreciate the fact that not everyone has the same priorities as I do. I'm not sure the open source movement would be where it's at today without the hard-core advocates who insist on using the GPL.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
4. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-21 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  but switched over to be more in favour of the BSD/ISC/MIT licences because they are maximally free.
  
  I take exception to that. The BSD and GPL are equally free, but they split on whom gets that freedom; one gives an extra freedom to the immediate developer to change the licensing, one gives extra freedom to the downstream developer by propagating all the freedoms onto to them.
  Most people using BSD 'derived' code have none of the freedoms BSD offers. How exactly do you argue with a straight face that this is the better outcome?
  
  More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
  
  That amounts to the public paying for all the bakeries ingredients, and then the bakery sells bread back to the public. Yes, that's a pretty ideal system for the baker; not such a good deal for the public though. Why are they funding the baker's ingredients exactly?
  If it were the GPL the baker would also have to share how the bread is made, and people wouldn't have to depend on him if they wanted to make their own bread. (This, according to you is the 'less free' option.)
  Small wonder the baker prefers the BSD.
  
  Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
  IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
  Note that I don't contend the pragmatic arguments aren't real, just that they are deeply unsatisfying on a philosophical level. They point to difficult to solve problems with society itself, and rather than solve these difficult problems, the pragmatist just accepts them as unsolved and proceeds to go for lunch. That's not much of a solution.
5. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Some developers simply will not license their software under the GPL. Using other licenses is therefore an excellent solution because it is the only way the software will be released at all.
  Are you objecting to their right to release their own software under whatever license they see fit? I see no legal, ethical, or moral grounds to do so.
  Once one accepts that part, all other objections just come across as whiny.
6. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-21 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  Some developers simply will not license their software under the GPL.
  And?
  
  Using other licenses is therefore an excellent solution because it is the only way the software will be released at all.
  What do I care if they release it or not?
  
  Are you objecting to their right to release their own software under whatever license they see fit? I see no legal, ethical, or moral grounds to do so.
  If they write it from scratch themselves they can do whatever they like. I didn't contribute to it. I didn't fund it. As long as I don't have to use it, they can do whatever they want.
7. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-21 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  Assuming you developed all the code yourself from scratch then it has nothing to do with the BSD and GPL debate. Go nuts. It really has nothing to with the conversation though.
  On the other hand if you developed it based on GPL then you are likely in violation of the license if you aren't making the source available.
  If you developed it based on BSD code then you are within your rights...but your claim of 'building your own business and all the money generating assets in it' was pretty much bullshit.
8. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  On a philosophical level, is the freedom to suppress freedom really maximal freedom? Hot topic since the invention of bourgeois liberalism.
9. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  > I take exception to that. The BSD and GPL are equally free, but they split on whom gets that freedom; one gives an extra freedom to the immediate developer to change the licensing, one gives extra freedom to the downstream developer by propagating all the freedoms onto to them.
  Except that the downstream developer has few freedoms. Sure they can modify the code and if that is all you care about then yes, it is a nice freedom. But that developer has no freedom in choosing how they can redistribute the product of their work: that is decided for them by the GPL.
  GPL is a tradeoff in giving up your right to decide how you redistribute source code for the ability to modify it.
  As for GPLv3, blame TiVO for that. Except that now the TiVO (series 3 anyway), has almost been completely cracked. Only a 512bit public key stands in the way of being able to put any Linux kernel on a series 3 TiVO now.
10. Re:I used to like the GPL by the_womble · 2017-10-21 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
  That amounts to the public paying for all the bakeries ingredients, and then the bakery sells bread back to the public. Yes, that's a pretty ideal system for the baker; not such a good deal for the public though. Why are they funding the baker's ingredients exactly?
  Exactly. I wonder how many of the academics choosing BSD like licences are later setting up businesses that use closed source derivatives of that code? That way, they can close the code, regardless of whether they personally hold the copyright or not, and including any outside contributions.
11. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  If software was developed using public funding and released under a BSD license, you have the right to use that software however you like. Denying some other members of the public the right to use the software however they like does not increase its value or provide more freedom.
  You appear to value "software that doesn't cost money" more than "freedom".
12. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  > Except that the downstream developer has few freedoms.
  They have at least four.
13. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-22 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  If software was developed using public funding and released under a BSD license, you have the right to use that software however you like.
  Right up until someone else takes it, extends it a bit, changes the license, and I'm stuck using it. Its still 95%+ the publically funded software... with 0% of the rights.
14. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-22 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the downstream developer has few freedoms. Sure they can modify the code and if that is all you care about then yes, it is a nice freedom
  That's already one more freedom than the downstream developer who received "upstream its BSD but not anymore code"
  
  But that developer has no freedom in choosing how they can redistribute the product of their work: that is decided for them by the GPL.
  The downstream developer receiving relicensed BSD code has no right to modify OR redistribute. Yeah the GPL puts some restrictions their redistribution... to PRESERVE the right of redistribution further down the line.
  The guy with re-licensed code based on BSD has no rights at all. The guy upstream stripped him of all his rights. He can't modify it, he can't fix it, and he can't redistribute it.
15. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Initially when you work on a project there is no "downstream developer".
  Later on, a downstream developer cannot be "stripped" of rights he never had.
  He does however have recourse to use the original version.
16. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-22 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Later on, a downstream developer cannot be "stripped" of rights he never had.
  Is this the maximal freedom the BSD enables? Where a developer doesn't have to worry about losing any rights, because he never got them in the first place!
  
  He does however have recourse to use the original version.
  iOS is based on BSD. How much value is there in the 'recourse' to the 'original version'? Or a checkpoint firewall? Or a juniper device?
  No rights to lose, because you don't have any to start with.
17. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-22 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  so you use the original code, released under BSD not the extended code. you have lost nothing.
18. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  While I see your point, don't be under the illusion that anyone was "stripped" of their rights; by law, they never had those rights - and declining to grant rights is very different from taking those rights away.
  Some people would say it's reasonably fair that the downstream developer only got the same rights to the BSD code that the first developer got. Just because someone gave another person a gift doesn't entitle you to a gift from the receiver.
19. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-23 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Some people would say it's reasonably fair that the downstream developer only got the same rights to the BSD code that the first developer got. Just because someone gave another person a gift doesn't entitle you to a gift from the receiver.
  Except that *I* might be the original developer, or the guy who paid the original developer. And all you did was take my 'gift' put on some wrapping paper and a bow, and then sell it back to me with all the rights I gave you stripped away.
  The code I gave you had these rights attached, and the extended code you sent back me no longer has them. To say... they weren't 'stripped', just 'declined to be granted' is pointless sophistry.
  Its legal and within the license, and its moral in the sense that I gave you permission to do this in the original license, but its still a dick move IMO, and its morally dubious within most moral frameworks... in the sense that it wasn't strictly 'wrong'... but there's not a lot of good arguments for how it is 'right'?
20. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Except that *I* might be the original developer, or the guy who paid the original developer. And all you did was take my 'gift' put on some wrapping paper and a bow, and then sell it back to me with all the rights I gave you stripped away.
  And believe it or not, some developers are okay with that.
  However, if you're the original developer and you gave your work away without making any effort to preserve the same rights to those downstream, I have no sympathy for you if someone takes advantage of your license terms. You can't exactly cry 'unfair' if people do what's allowed, but not what you expected.
  You can't steal something that's freely given.
21. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-23 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for circling back to the very beginning of the discussion.
  Most people don't know licensing. They choose the GPL or the BSD in many cases because they do *want* it to be 'free', and they don't really understand the difference. Then some twit comes along and sasy 'go BSD' its maximally free -- the GPL has restrictions.... so they follow that advice.
  And then when they find someone put a nice bow on their 'free code' and is selling it for big money, they often say ... this isn't what i intended at all. I wanted it to be free; I wanted other people to take it and extend it... I didn't release it so that big companies could put a bow on it and then try to sell it back to me with strict licensing terms.
  "You can't exactly cry 'unfair' if people do what's allowed, but not what you expected."
  Quite so. This is why its important to be very clear exactly what each license allows and doesn't allow. So that your expectations are *met*.
  You are absolutely right that lots of authors are fine with their code being BSD... and that's fine if that's what THEY want. I've released BSD code myself, usually smaller library type stuff where I don't care who uses it for what purpose, or for sample/demo type stuff.
  My preference for GPL is more for bigger projects, where the tendancy for another entity to just try and 'squat and monetize it' becomes more of an issue.
  And big projects funded by public universities/public research grants/ etc a GPL license makes more sense. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to just help themselves to that and then sell it.
22. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-23 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus, are you arrogant.
  You really think developers don't understand the licensing they chose just because they don't agree with you that GPL is preferable? Get off your condescending high horse.
23. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-24 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  You really think developers don't understand the licensing they chose
  In a lot of cases: yes.
  It has nothing to do with my preference; lots of people, including developers don't really know the ins and outs of the GPL or BSD or the LGPL or GPLv3 vs v2, or AGPL, or MPL... why should anyone expect otherwise?
  Beyond the very basics, this is a specialty for lawyers not developers. Why do you think the average developer knows this stuff inside out?
24. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-24 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  You really think developers don't understand the licensing they chose
  In a lot of cases: yes.
  Can you back that up with anything besides your own hubris?
25. Re:I used to like the GPL by vux984 · 2017-10-24 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
26. Re:I used to like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  But of course you won't.
Worried about BSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:28 · Score: 0

Presumably they're worried that enough big lawsuits would encourage companies to use BSD instead.
1. Re:Worried about BSD? by jonsmirl · 2017-10-21 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Linux GPL enforces compatibility. Without the GPL Linux would fracture into hundreds of proprietary dialects like BSD has.
2. Re:Worried about BSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Hundreds? No. A couple dozen at best. There are more Linux distros than anything else. Remember, Linux is simply a kernel with whatever toolchains and userland the distro developers wanted. BSD is a full OS that can be customized with a given userland, but the toolchains remain largely the same. Also, the various BSD camps borrow heavily from each other's trees.
3. Re: Worried about BSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there are many GNU/Linux distros, but they are binary compatible, while the BSDs are not.
4. Re:Worried about BSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  "hundreds"?
  I see the GPL's original point, but the OSS folks have always had a problem in that they conflate "freedom" with "openness" and that is incorrect in, at least, this context. GPL is more open, BSD is more free. I think the GPL is just like Apple, only you're walled out of the garden and not into it. They both believe there is only one way to live.
5. Re:Worried about BSD? by Dog-Cow · 2017-10-21 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apple makes a considerable amount of their software available as Open Source. They most definitely do not believe that a walled garden is the only way to live. They do it because it makes them money.
MPAA's personal touch by OrangeTide · 2017-10-21 03:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think as Linux kernel developers we should take note of the very personal touch the MPAA has used to deal with violators: An early morning visit by a paramilitary police force.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Copyright law says you can't make copies for another without permission.
The BSD license grants an exception to copyright, (like all distribution licenses for copyrighted works,) which lets you copy it, but also lets you take away that permission from whoever you distribute the software too.
The GPL license also grants an exception to copyright, but says you can't take it away from whoever you distribute the software too. In other words, they get the same right to run, modify, and distribute the software as the licensed work you based your changes upon.
1. Re:GPL is about user freedom by vakuona · 2017-10-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Both largely give you the same rights over software already licensed under the terms of those licenses. They key difference is that the GPL gives you additional rights over any modifications made to the software provided those modifications have been distributed to anyone else.
  You cannot take away rights to software with BSD license. You can only not give rights to modification of software that is licensed, and that is a reasonable compromise.
2. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for this succinct summary. I never really understood the fundamental difference between the two.
3. Re:GPL is about user freedom by ChatHuant · 2017-10-21 08:49 · Score: 3
  
  The BSD license grants an exception to copyright, (like all distribution licenses for copyrighted works,) which lets you copy it, but also lets you take away that permission from whoever you distribute the software too.
  I keep hearing this flawed argument every time this particular discussion comes around (every Saturday, it seems like). It surprises me people still fall for it. It's a fallacy, based on confusion between the code developed by the original publisher and the code developed by other people.
  
  If party A releases some code under the BSD licence, party B can't take away party C's permission to use A's code. B has the freedom to distribute his code under any licence he feels like, but can't infringe C's freedom to use A's code any way C likes. By contrast, the GPL removes B's right to release his own code under whatever licence works best for him. Ironically, this restriction of B's rights is called "freedom" by GPL supporters, and the BSD licence that allows all rights *to A's code* is called "less free" than the GPL that allows fewer rights.
4. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Megol · 2017-10-21 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  There is no permission removed. But nobody is forced to permit distribution under the same license. Real freedom, both for developers and users.
  In most cases it's advantageous to co-operate with other in developing the software but the BSD allows co-operation of some parts and private development of other parts. A choice in other words - freedom. And the user can choose to go with the software from a company that is based on BSD sourcecode or using the same original sourcecode.
  You may think that users of open source should be forced to keep the development open under the same license and I'd actually agree with that for a subset of software - but the GPL is simply less free than the BSD license which in turn is less free than e.g. CC0.
5. Re:GPL is about user freedom by mfnickster · 2017-10-21 09:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You sound like you've done your homework, so I have to give you credit for that.
  However, you are mistaken when you say GPL removes B's right to distribute his own code - provided that code constitutes a derivative work, B never had the right to choose licensing for it. That stems from copyright law: the original author sets the terms for derivative works.
  
  --
  "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
6. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  B never had the right to choose licensing for it
  Don't be so sure of that.
  Suppose B wrote hundreds of thousands of lines of code and then decided he wanted to add minor feature X that's not in his area of expertise, so he does some searching and finds libraries for Feature X available via download from A1 BSD, A2 as MIT, A3 as Apache Commons, A4 as GPL (and possibly from A5 as LGPL).
  B now has a decision to make. After some research, he discovers that A4 is the most feature-rich and bug-free implementation, but he cannot even consider using it if he wants to dictate copyright terms for the code he wrote.
  Example: Fuck GNU readline for choosing GPL when it should be LGPL.
7. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  Sour grapes. If you don't want to share your code, don't use GPL'd code in your project. It's that simple.
8. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  No shit, Sherlock... you figured that out all by yourself?
  (Hint: That's the entire point of this discussion.)
  p.s. Sour grapes is the wrong metaphor for this case. It's the license that's being criticized, not the grapes.
9. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently some people need to be reminded that sharing your code is the whole point of GPL. They want use GPL'd code except they think it "takes away their freedom to not share." Well, duh. Why the fuck are you using it then?
  And 'sour grapes' is perfectly apt because they took something freely offered (someone else's code) thinking it would be sweet but the terms of the license make it sour to them.
10. Re:GPL is about user freedom by david_thornley · 2017-10-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  And A6 is the best version of all of them, and it's proprietary and can't be licensed except at considerable cost and a requirement of DRM on the software. B then throws a tantrum because B can't get the best versions without complying with licenses.
  Seriously, B can use one of the permissively licensed versions or write his own (perhaps using one of the permissively licensed ones as a starting point). B doesn't have the right to whatever B wants.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
11. Re:GPL is about user freedom by ChatHuant · 2017-10-23 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yours is really a pedant point - I thought it was clear the whole discussion is about derivative code. Well, there's always somebody jumping in to kvetch that not all assumptions were clearly and separately stated at length.
  Whether B has the right to choose his license is precisely the subject of the discussion, and the difference between BSD and GPL. You're wrong saying "B never had the right to choose licensing". He can choose licensing (of derivative code, see, I'm stating the assumption clearly) provided the author of the original, (that is A), grants him the right to do so. In this case, A has already done this by publishing his code under the BSD.
  This discussion is really not about A and B (who in this example are the actual code writers). This thread is about the GPL supporter, C. What is happening in this thread is that various Cs attack the original publisher, A, because he isn't forcing B to give them his (B's) code. The various Cs bellyache because they only get A's code, but they also wanted B's.
  Now, as C, you could argue that the more code is openly available, the better the whole ecosystem is. But this is not the argument the grandparent was making - he was spinning this as "taking away rights", when in fact he never had those rights. That was the fallacy I objected to.
12. Re:GPL is about user freedom by Bengie · 2017-10-24 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  BSD doesn't let you take away any permission upon distribution. Just because you made a copy of FreeBSD with some alternations does not mean FreeBSD is no longer able to be copied for anyone else. BSD lets you distribution custom alterations without having to release the source for them. The originals are just fine.
True. don't need to comply until caught by raymorris · 2017-10-21 03:56 · Score: 1

True, payment can also be used to encourage compliance BEFORE getting caught. "If you don't comply from the start, you'll have to pay when you get caught", is one approach. It seem McHardy is seeking personal gain, though, based on his tactics of putting time pressure on them, etc.
There may be no right way to do it. Giving a warning and allowing them to come into compliance with no penalty makes sense if someone just goofed. On the other hand, a policy of always allowing 30 days to cure with penalty could be interpreted as "there's no reason to comply until after you get caught". The best approach, IMHO, may be a small penalty for non-compliance as soon as someone gets caught - enough penalty that it makes sense for companies to comply BEFORE they get caught, and 30 days to fix it before more significant penalties are pursued.
Futile by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 04:16 · Score: 0

The kernel is GPLv2 and has so many contributors that there is no hope of ever changing the license. You can only not enforce the license, but you cannot take away the right to enforce the license from other contributors.
Can influence the court vs his 0.1% contribution by raymorris · 2017-10-21 04:59 · Score: 1

Even in enforcing a license, a court must decide how exactly to do so. If monetary damages are appropriate, how much money exactly? A court should hear from the copyright holders and from the defendant before deciding on remedies.
As you said, there are many contributors to the kernel, and many contributors to netfilter. If the vast majority of copyright holders relevant copy right holders say "we just want them to start complying, we don't want any money other than expenses for this case", a court should duly noted that.
Where one person has contributed much less than 1% of the code
Re:Can influence the court vs his 0.1% contributio by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 05:26 · Score: 0

Irrelevant. License violations void the license. Continued use requires the consent of all contributors who choose to enforce the license. The 99.9% can't take that choice away from the 0.1%. Unless all contributors agree to renew the license, the court can only find that the license violator has no license to distribute. Monetary damages don't come into it. The court cannot force a contributor to give a license that they don't want to give.
Re:Can influence the court vs his 0.1% contributio by tepples · 2017-10-21 05:59 · Score: 1

Once a prominent contributor takes a substantial stand against this additional permission, watch someone file issues to replace this contributor's contributions.
Fixed link to the statement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 06:03 · Score: 0

Fixed link to the statement
Complete and Total Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a corporate push to protect corporate interests while they violate the GPL. The monetary findings that punish companies are so rare that there is no problem here at all. Liars working for moneyed interests.
Re:Can influence the court vs his 0.1% contributio by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 07:18 · Score: 1

It would have to be a clean implementation of an interface that existed before the contribution that they mean to eliminate. Otherwise it's still a derived work and the contributor maintains control over it through the "viral" nature of the GPL. Anyone who has worked on the part to be eliminated need not apply: They're too likely to end up with a result that would not elminate the claim.
It's fascinating that major open source proponents are trying to make an end run around one of the most well-known open source licenses and the rights it gives to countless authors who have contributed to one of the biggest open source projects.
Same copyright scheme, same outcomes? by jbn-o · 2017-10-21 08:29 · Score: 1

If it's okay to violate Hollywood movie company copyrights (as is the prevailing view here) because you don't like the terms why are the copyrights to Linux more special?
Licensing differences lead to radically different outcomes. Free software (not just the variants of the Linux kernel containing only free software) is more attractive because the effect of the license on the users. Hollywood movies are licensed restrictively even disallowing verbatim non-commercial sharing (in other words, treating friends like friends). In addition, Hollywood movies often use digital restrictions management (a proper expansion of "DRM" from the majority standpoint, that of the viewer) to enforce more than the license restricts. DRM means non-free software control over one's computer since all DRM software is proprietary. Proprietary software is inherently unethical no matter its purpose. As people put more sensitive data on their computers, more use of proprietary software means predictably uglier outcomes even for those who participated fully in a DRM scheme.
Free software implements an environment of sharing and cooperation as well as individual control over one's computer (to the limits of one's interest and skill). These are good unto themselves but also have good consequences for businesses (which is a nice consequence but not chief goal of the free software movement). I trust I don't have to review how many commercial developers and distributors benefit from the Linux kernel. Commercial distribution of Hollywood movies as we currently see, by contrast, implements control over the viewer, fund an increasingly punitive copyright regime, and fund an unjustifiably long term of copyright. /.ers who pay to see the Star Wars movies would be wise to recall this; they're directly funding the organization most widely associated with the last copyright term expansion—Disney, for example.
Violating a free software license means mistreating a person or organization that was respecting a user's software freedom. But violating a proprietary license can be the "lesser evil" as Richard Stallman once put it in his talk about why society needs free software and why we should value software freedom for its own sake: Someone who had a useful nonfree program under a license that prohibited non-commercial verbatim copies had to choose between obeying the license of that program (and denying their friend a copy of the program) versus helping their friend who wanted a copy of a program by distributing a copy. This came up in the context of discussing free software freedom #2: "the freedom to help your neighbour. That's the freedom to make copies and distribute them to others, when you wish":

Freedom two is essential on fundamental ethical grounds, so that you can live an upright, ethical life as a member of your community. If you use a program that does not give you freedom number two, you're in danger of falling at any moment into a moral dilemma. When your friend says "that's a nice program, could I have a copy?" At that moment, you will have to choose between two evils. One evil is: give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program. The other evil is: deny your friend a copy and comply with the licence of the program.
Once you are in that situation, you should choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program.
He goes on to explain that picking the lesser evil is not good, but one should aim the harm at the party that did harm (those that publish useful proprietary software) not to an innocent party (the friend). So the solution is to only have free software so you never get into this dilemma in the first place because all of the software you have you're free to share. Here we can see that the same copyright scheme grants power to radically different lic

--
Digital Citizen
Bad fix for the wrong problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 09:18 · Score: 0

This is a bad fix for the wrong problem. The real issue is that companies are violating the GPL license of the linux kerel.
Linus should announce the 'phase-out' of all non-GPL drivers and blobs from 2020. Plenty of time for everybody to get compliant then.

Lot's of positive effects: hardware vendors will simply have no choice. The current legal gray area of proprietary kernel code and binary blobs has no place in our ecosystem. Android phones with the new kernel will become upgradeable forever. Less e-waste.
Personally, I don't care is someone is profiteering of the GPL violations of companies, these companies should know better. Informed consultants should inform their customers: "Make all your kernel development GPL to avoid future legal problems. Yes, it is like that, period!"

Afraid that your competitor can see the code? "Well, policy is for userspace; your kernel code should be small and should only implement mechanism; it's the way any driver should work anyway. Period; again."

The FSF isn't dirty about asking monetary compensation for copyright or GPL license violations either. The term "undisclosed sum" passes a lot around. Sure, they do something good with the money, but should we become overly sympathetic with ignorant managers at larger companies who violate our (copy)rights?
1. Re:Bad fix for the wrong problem... by jonwil · 2017-10-21 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is a grey area around things like the NVIDIA blobs and other "binary kernel modules". But when companies refuse to even try to comply with the GPL and share the kernel source for their device, there is no "grey area", its just as much of a copyright violation as it is when someone shares an illegal copy of the latest Star Wars film.
  Its the same when someone distributes a kernel module or changes and has based it on existing GPL code (e.g. when Samsung distributed kernels for some of their phones but didn't include the code for the ExFat module even though said module was derived from the GPL FAT code)
There should be more 'copyright trolls'... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 09:42 · Score: 0

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people aggressively going after GPL violators!
Let there be more 'copyright trolls'; it's the best way to ensure GPL compliance will happen more and better.
Let the multinationals do their proper due diligence with respect to their possible GPL abuse.
Don't think for one second that it would halt Linux adoption in any way; we passed beyond that point more than 10 years ago!
Kinsella by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 10:14 · Score: 1

Copyright law is a joke and has functionally destroyed or delayed unfathomable levels of productive economic activity.
The Linux Foundation needs to bring in Stephan Kinsella on retainer to help with this. Probably no one else has done as much legal-philosophical work into the nature and practice of modern IP as he has.
Not true. Cars not derived from horses. SCO Unix by raymorris · 2017-10-21 10:47 · Score: 1

"Replaces" does not mean "derived from". Cars replace horses. Cars are not derived from horses. More to the point, GPL Linux replaces Unix; Linux is not a derivative work of Unix.
SCO spent millions on lawyers arguing that Linux is a derivative work of Unix, which it replaces. Several courts ruled it is not. It's entirely possible to replace something without creating a derivative work.
> Anyone who has worked on the part to be eliminated need not apply
Partially true. Someone who really knows the old code inside and out would need to write a significantly better or different replacement, in order to make I clear that it's not essentially the same implementation. Someone very familiar with it may know of fundamental problems with the old approach and have ideas about a new, better approach. That would be fine. If an existing developer doesn't have ideas for a new approach, it's best that the new code be written by someone unfamiliar with the implementation details of the old code.
Re:Not true. Cars not derived from horses. SCO Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 13:07 · Score: 0

So I guess we're going to see yet another different network package management system in Linux soon? A clean replacement is not a derived work. A replacement that is based on the thing it replaces is a derived work. There are many different ways to do one thing with code, but if you have worked with a piece of code and then write a replacement, you're very likely going to create a derived work. In order to reliably replace the code without any copyright entanglement, you must not know the inner workings of the old code, just the API.
streaming = ftp + 24/7 surveillance as a bonus by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-21 17:29 · Score: 0

I for one don't accept streaming music and netflix. Those things have privacy violating surveillance built into the system. They got away with it because Snowden didn't happen until 2013. Things are still in a very bad place. Maybe it will take more elections with bigger weaponized psychology (targeted advertising) campaigns against the masses who have been foolish enough not to value their media intake details. When our grandparents read books, the government wasn't reading over their shoulders every second, recording every detail of pause, page turn, rewind. Today the government quite literally effectively is (call it fourth party collection or whatever you like, the situation is present). It may be that in the evolution of things, the abuses of this are less consequential than my alarmist instinct fears. Maybe.
41121? by MinusOne · 2017-10-21 18:17 · Score: 2

Damn newbies, they ruined this place years ago!
Background: McHardy enforcing the GPL in Germany by spth · 2017-10-21 18:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Apparently, a few years ago, some Linux developer named McHardy started enforcing the GPL in Germany on his own. See e.g. the background article at https://sfconservancy.org/blog...
It looks like he tends to sue GPL-violators for about 2000€ + his costs (attorny fees for trying to settle out of court, costs for reverse engineering):
Example where he successfully sued the Germany subsidy of a Taiwanese hardware manufacturer for a total of about 2900€: LG Frankfurt, 2-6 O 224/06 http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/do...
However, there was also a case where he demanded and got more: A GPL-violator that he had contacted in 2010, and got to comply with the GPL out of court back then became a repeat offender in 2012. He sued them for for 5000€ + attorny fees of 2000€: LG Hamburg, 308 O 10/13 http://www.damm-it-recht.de/lg...
On the other hand, most Linux developers apparently think that free software developers and organizations tasked with GPL enforcement should not profit from suing GPL violators. The Software Freedom Conservancy is losing money from enforcing the GPL, and asks for donations to be able to continue their work.
Philipp
Re:Not true. Cars not derived from horses. SCO Uni by tepples · 2017-10-23 10:52 · Score: 1

So I guess we're going to see yet another different network package management system in Linux soon?
Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding what you mean by "network package management system":
A package management system is an independent process in user space. The only Linux interfaces on which APT or DNF relies are the syscall interfaces, which were already subject to an additional permission.