251 lines
9.1 KiB
TeX
251 lines
9.1 KiB
TeX
% case-study-ethics.tex -*- LaTeX -*-
|
|
|
|
% Tutorial Text for GPL Compliance Case Studies
|
|
% and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing
|
|
%
|
|
% Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
|
|
|
|
% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
|
|
% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
|
|
|
|
\documentclass[12pt]{report}
|
|
% FILTER_PS: \input{generate-ps-file}
|
|
% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
|
|
% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
|
|
\input{one-inch-margins}
|
|
|
|
%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
|
|
%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
|
|
|
|
\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
|
|
|
|
%\pagestyle{empty}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\begin{titlepage}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.5in}
|
|
|
|
{\Large {\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies and Legal Ethics in Free Software
|
|
Licensing } \\
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.7in}
|
|
|
|
Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\
|
|
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.3in}
|
|
|
|
Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\
|
|
\vspace{.1in}
|
|
Wednesday 21 January 2003
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.7in}
|
|
|
|
{\large
|
|
Bradley M. Kuhn
|
|
|
|
Executive Director
|
|
|
|
Free Software Foundation
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.3in}
|
|
|
|
|
|
{\large
|
|
Daniel Ravicher
|
|
|
|
Senior Counsel
|
|
|
|
Free Software Foundation
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
\vfill
|
|
|
|
{\parindent 0in
|
|
Copyright \copyright{} 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
|
|
|
|
\vspace{.3in}
|
|
|
|
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
|
|
any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\end{titlepage}
|
|
|
|
\pagestyle{plain}
|
|
\pagenumbering{roman}
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
|
|
|
|
This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL compliance
|
|
cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Each case offers unique
|
|
insights into problems that can arise when the terms of GPL are not
|
|
properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between the violator and
|
|
the copyright holder can yield positive results for both parties.
|
|
|
|
This course also includes a unit on the ethical considerations for
|
|
attorneys who want to represent clients that make use of or sell Free
|
|
Software products.
|
|
|
|
Attendees should have successfully completely the course, a ``Detailed
|
|
Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL'', as the material from that course
|
|
forms the building blocks for this material.
|
|
|
|
The course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or employers
|
|
that deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However, technical
|
|
managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute Free Software
|
|
will also find the course very helpful.
|
|
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
\tableofcontents
|
|
|
|
\pagebreak
|
|
|
|
\pagenumbering{arabic}
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
\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}
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
\chapter{Case Study B}
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
\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}
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
\chapter{Ethical Considerations for the Attorney Practicing Free Software}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|
|
|
|
% LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
|
|
% LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
|
|
% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc
|
|
% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV
|