* Wrote a few sections
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn
Bradley M. Kuhn
parent
27b594e05a
commit
1e4ce59c09
1 changed files with 109 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -117,6 +117,96 @@ will also find the course very helpful.
|
|||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab}
|
||||
|
||||
The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth. Unlike licenses like
|
||||
the X11-style or various BSD licenses, GPL (and by extention, the LGPL) is
|
||||
designed to defend as well as grant freedom. We saw in the last course
|
||||
that GPL uses copyright law as a mechanism to grant all the key freedoms
|
||||
essential in Free Software, but also to ensure that those freedoms
|
||||
propogate throughout the distribution chain of the software.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Termination Begins Enforcement}
|
||||
|
||||
As we have learned, the assurance that Free Software under GPL remains
|
||||
Free Software is accomplished through various terms of GPL: \S 3 ensures
|
||||
that binaries are always accompanied with source; \S 2 ensures that the
|
||||
sources are adequate, complete and usable; \S 6 and \S 7 ensures that the
|
||||
license of the software is always GPL for everyone, and that no other
|
||||
legal agreements or licenses trump GPL; \S 4 ensures that the GPL can be
|
||||
enforced.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement. This
|
||||
clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted. As a copyright
|
||||
license, GPL governs only the activities governed by copyright law ---
|
||||
copying, modifying and redistributing computer software. Unlike most
|
||||
copyright licenses, GPL gives wide grants of permission for engaging with
|
||||
these activities. Such permissions continue and all parties may exercise
|
||||
until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@. At the moment
|
||||
of such a violation --- the engaging of copying, modifying or
|
||||
redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL --- \S 4 is invoked.
|
||||
|
||||
Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators rights to continue engaging
|
||||
in the permissions that otherwise granted by GPL\@. Effectively, their
|
||||
permission go back to the copyright defaults --- no permission to copy,
|
||||
modify, or redistribute the work. Meanwhile, \S 5 points out that if
|
||||
if the violator has no rights under GPL --- as they will not once they
|
||||
have violated it --- then they otherwise have no right and are prohibited
|
||||
by copyright law from engaging in the activities of copying, modifying
|
||||
and distributing.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Ongoing Violations}
|
||||
|
||||
In conjuction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is one
|
||||
final industry fact is added to the mix: rarely, does on engage in a
|
||||
single, solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.
|
||||
Almost always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy a GPL'd
|
||||
program --- either made modifications or not --- and then begun a ongoing
|
||||
activity of distributing that work. For example, the violator may have
|
||||
put the software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the
|
||||
software was put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the
|
||||
delivery mechanism, violators almost always are engaged in {\em ongoing\/}
|
||||
violation of GPL\@.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, when we discover a GPL violation that occured only once --- for
|
||||
example, a user group who distributed copies of a GNU/Linux system without
|
||||
source at a meeting once --- we rarely pursue it with a high degree of
|
||||
dilligence. In our minds, that is an educational problem, and unless the
|
||||
user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, the never do) we
|
||||
simply send an FAQ entry that best explains how user groups can most
|
||||
easily comply with GPL, and send them on there merry way.
|
||||
|
||||
It is only the cases of {\em ongoing\/} GPL violation that warrant our
|
||||
active attention. We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds
|
||||
or thousands of customers are receiving software that is out of
|
||||
compliance, and the company continually puts for sale (or distributes
|
||||
gratis as a demo) software distributions that include GPL'd components out
|
||||
of compliance. Our goal is to maximize the impact of enforcement and
|
||||
educate industries who are making a mistake on a large scale.
|
||||
|
||||
In addition, such ongoing violation shows that a particular company is
|
||||
committed to a GPL'd product line. We are thrilled to learn that someone
|
||||
is benefitting from Free Software, and we understand that sometimes they
|
||||
have become confused about the rules of the road. Rather than merely
|
||||
giving us a post mortem to perform on a past mistake, an ongoing violation
|
||||
gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor the GPL'd
|
||||
commons about proper procedures to contribute to the community.
|
||||
|
||||
Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up particular violation.
|
||||
Over time, we hope that our compliance lab will be out of business. We
|
||||
seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce related to GPL'd
|
||||
software to obey the rules of the road and allow them to operate freely
|
||||
under them. Just as a traffic officer would not revel in reminding people
|
||||
which side of the road to drive in, so we do not revel in violations. By
|
||||
contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an ongoing violator about
|
||||
GPL so that GPL compliance becomes a second-nature matter, and they join
|
||||
the GPL ecosystem as contributors.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{First Contact}
|
||||
|
||||
The Free Software community is built on a structure of voluntary
|
||||
cooperation and mutual help.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Case Study A}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,10 +216,28 @@ will also find the course very helpful.
|
|||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Case Study C}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Case Study D}
|
||||
|
||||
Reminder about how organizations themselves work. We don't have to
|
||||
educate the organization, just call their attention to something.
|
||||
|
||||
Working on DVD cases -- interested in the question on how one plays DVD
|
||||
on one ligitimate owns, if one uses GNU/Linux give the licensing
|
||||
structure of DVD content scrambling system.
|
||||
|
||||
An article from the IBM guy who had arranged to have DVD player
|
||||
application by a vendor for includsion with IBM distributed based T20s.
|
||||
|
||||
They shimed the kernel, it was a GPL problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Couple of weeks, we've looked into it, and we're going back to the
|
||||
contractor and having them redo the thing to comply with GPL.
|
||||
|
||||
contaminate a video output port with MacroVision.
|
||||
|
||||
kernel mods
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Good Practices for Compliance}
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue