Section still needs work, but this is better.
This commit is contained in:
parent
dae7009d2d
commit
2e4dac47f8
1 changed files with 21 additions and 9 deletions
|
@ -744,21 +744,33 @@ generalizations and do not all apply to every alleged violation.
|
|||
|
||||
\section{Understanding Who's Enforcing}
|
||||
\label{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
|
||||
% FIXME: this text needs work.
|
||||
% FIXME-LATER: this text needs work.
|
||||
|
||||
At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF
|
||||
Both FSF and Conservancy has, as part their mission, to spread software
|
||||
freedom. When FSF or Conservancy
|
||||
enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
|
||||
quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
|
||||
That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
|
||||
with the license and respect freedom.
|
||||
|
||||
However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
|
||||
freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.
|
||||
MySQL AB, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon
|
||||
discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software
|
||||
license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF
|
||||
would ever consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for
|
||||
copyright holders to proceed.
|
||||
However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software freedom
|
||||
as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently. Oracle, a
|
||||
company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon discovering GPL
|
||||
violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license separately for
|
||||
a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF nor Conservancy would ever
|
||||
consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legally way for copyright
|
||||
holders to proceed.
|
||||
|
||||
Generally, GPL enforcers come in two varieties. First, there are
|
||||
Conservancy, FSF, and other ``community enforcers'', who primary seek the
|
||||
policy goals of GPL (software freedom), and see financial compensation as
|
||||
ultimately secondary to those goals. Second, there are ``for-profit
|
||||
enforcers'' who use the GPL as a either a crippleware license, or sneakily
|
||||
induce infringement merely to gain proprietary licensing revenue.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the latter model \texit{only} works for companies who hold 100\% of
|
||||
the copyrights in the infringed work. As such, multi-copyright-held works
|
||||
are fully insulated from these tactics.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Communication Is Key}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue