* Wrote a few sections

Case-Study-Ethics/case-study-ethics.tex

@@ -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}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%