Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Section still needs work, but this is better.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 21:38:59 -04:00
parent 9b7159eeed
commit 7f3a5a7553
1 changed files with 21 additions and 9 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

30
compliance-guide.tex
View file

@ -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}