diff --git a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/principles.html b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cc2979b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}
+{% block subtitle %}GPL Compliance Project - {% endblock %}
+{% block submenuselection %}Principles{% endblock %}
+{% block content %}
+The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement
+
+The GNU General Public License (GPL) is the principal copyleft
+license. Copyleft is a framework that permits ongoing sharing of a
+published work, with clear permissions that both grant
+and defend its users' freedoms — in contrast to other
+free licenses that grant freedom but don't defend it.
+Free software released under the GPL is fundamental
+to modern technology, powering everything from laptops and desktops to
+household appliances, cars, and mobile phones, to the foundations of
+the Internet. Following the GPL's terms is easy — it gets more
+complicated only when products distributed with GPL'd software also
+include software distributed under terms that restrict users. Even in
+these situations, many companies comply properly, but some companies
+also try to bend or even break the GPL's rules to their perceived
+advantage.
+
+The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Software Freedom Conservancy
+ (Conservancy) today lead worldwide efforts to ensure compliance with
+ the GPL family of licenses. The FSF began copyleft enforcement
+ in the 1980s, and Conservancy has enforced the GPL for many of
+ its member projects since its founding nearly a decade ago. Last
+ year, the FSF and Conservancy jointly
+ published Copyleft and
+ the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and
+ Guide, which includes sections such as
+ “A
+ Practical Guide to GPL Compliance” and
+ “Case
+ Studies in GPL Enforcement”, which explain the typical
+ process that both the FSF and Conservancy follow in their GPL
+ enforcement actions. (Shorter descriptions of these processes appear
+ in blog posts written
+ by the
+ FSF
+ and Conservancy.)
+
+As stalwarts of the community's freedom, we act as a proxy for users when
+companies impede the rights to copy, share, modify, and/or
+redistribute copylefted software. We require all redistributors to
+follow the GPL's requirements in order to protect all the users' freedom,
+and secondarily to support businesses that respect freedom
+while discouraging and penalizing bad actors.
+
+Copyleft is based on copyright; it uses the power of copyright to
+defend users' freedom to modify and redistribute rather than to hinder
+modification and redistribution. A traditional copyright license is
+violated by giving the work to others without permission; a copyleft
+license is violated by imposing restrictions to prevent
+further redistribution by others. Nevertheless, with their basis in copyright law,
+copyleft licenses are enforced through the same mechanisms — using
+the same vocabulary and processes — as other copyright
+licenses. We must take care, in copyleft enforcement,
+to focus on the ultimate freedom-spreading purpose of copyleft,
+and not fall into an overzealous or punitive approach, or into
+legitimizing inherently unjust aspects of the copyright regime.
+Therefore Conservancy and the FSF do enforcement according to community-oriented principles originally formulated by the FSF in 2001.
+
+
+Guiding Principles in Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement
+
+
+- Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL
+compliance. Copyleft's overarching policy
+goal is to make respect of users' freedoms the norm.
+The FSF designed the GNU GPL's text towards this end.
+Copyleft enforcement done in this spirit focuses on stopping
+incorrect distribution, encouraging corrected distribution, and
+addressing damage done to the community and users by the past
+violation. Addressing past damage often includes steps to notify those
+who have already received the software how they can also obtain its
+source code, and to explain the scope of their related rights. No
+other ancillary goals should supersede full compliance
+with the GPL and respect for users' freedoms to copy, share, modify
+and redistribute the software.
+
+
+- Legal action is a last resort. Compliance actions are primarily
+education and assistance processes to aid those who are not following the
+license.
+
+Most GPL violations occur by mistake, without ill will.
+Copyleft enforcement should assist these distributors to
+become helpful participants in the free software
+projects on which they rely. Occasionally, violations are intentional
+or the result of severe negligence, and there is no duty to be
+empathetic in those cases. Even then, a lawsuit is a
+last resort; mutually agreed terms that fix (or at least cease)
+further distribution and address damage already done are much better than a battle in court.
+
+
+- Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and
+responsiveness. Supporters of software
+freedom rightly view confidentiality agreements with
+distrust, and prefer public discussions. However, in compliance
+work, initiating and continuing discussions in private demonstrates
+good faith, provides an opportunity to teach compliance without fear
+of public reprisal, and offers a chance to fix honest mistakes.
+Enforcement actions that begin with public accusations are much more
+likely to end in costly and lengthy lawsuits, and less likely to achieve the
+primary goal of coming into compliance. Accordingly, enforcers should,
+even if reluctantly, offer confidentiality as a term of settlement. If
+it becomes apparent that the company is misusing good faith
+confidentiality to cover inaction and unresponsiveness, the problems
+may be publicized, after ample warning.
+
+- Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize
+financial gain.
+
+Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when
+used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is
+simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait
+for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social
+model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable.
+An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors
+over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial)
+staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it.
+Copyright holders (or their designated agent) therefore are reasonable
+to request compensation for the cost of their time providing the
+compliance education that accompanies any constructive enforcement
+action. Nevertheless, pursuing damages to the full extent allowed by
+copyright law is usually unnecessary, and can in some cases work against
+the purpose of copyleft.
+
+- Community-oriented compliance work does not request nor accept payment
+to overlook problems.
+
+Community-oriented enforcement cannot accept payments in exchange for
+ignoring a violation or accepting incomplete solutions to identified
+compliance problems. Ideally, copyright holders should refuse any
+payment entirely until the distributor repairs the past violation and
+commits formally (in writing) to plans for future compliance.
+
+- Community-oriented compliance work starts with carefully
+verifying violations and finishes only after a comprehensive
+analysis.
+
+This means fully checking reports and confirming violations before accusing
+an entity of violating the GPL. Then, all of the relevant
+software should be examined to ensure any compliance problems, beyond
+those identified in initial reports and those relating to any clauses of the
+relevant licenses, are raised and fixed. This is important so that
+the dialogue ends with reasonable assurance for both sides that additional
+violations are not waiting to be discovered.
+(Good examples of
+compliance already exist to help distributors understand their
+obligations.)
+
+- Community-oriented compliance processes should extend the
+benefit of GPLv3-like termination, even for GPLv2-only
+works. GPLv2 terminates all copyright permissions at the
+moment of violation, and that termination is permanent. GPLv3's
+termination provision allows first-time violators automatic
+restoration of distribution rights when they correct the violation
+promptly, and gives the violator a precise list of copyright holders
+whose forgiveness it needs. GPLv3's collaborative spirit regarding
+termination reflects a commitment to and hope for future cooperation
+and collaboration. It's a good idea to follow this approach in
+compliance situations stemming from honest mistakes, even when the
+violations are on works under GPLv2.
+
+
+These principles are not intended as a strict set of rules.
+Achieving compliance requires an understanding of the violator's
+situation, not so as to excuse the violation, but so as to see how
+to bring that violator into compliance. Copyleft licenses do not
+state specific enforcement methodologies (other than license termination itself)
+in part because the real world situation of GPL violations varies;
+rigidity impedes success.
+
+In particular, this list of principles purposely does not seek to
+create strict criteria and/or “escalation and mediation
+rules” for enforcement action. Efforts to do that limit the
+ability of copyright holders to use copyleft licenses for their
+intended effect: to stand up for the rights of users to copy, modify,
+and redistribute free software.
+
+The GPL,
+enforced when necessary according to these principles, provides a
+foundation for respectful, egalitarian, software-sharing
+communities.
+
+