3 ms·

"If my understanding -- that Patrick holds copyright to (at least some of) the netfilter code -- is correct, then Patrick is entitled to pursue any "enforcement

"If my understanding -- that Patrick holds copyright to (at least some of) the netfilter code -- is correct, then Patrick is entitled to pursue any "enforcement actions" he wishes." He is. However, and i sadly, can't go into detail with this[1], but the methods he is using to do so are considered by even pretty staunch GPL advocates to be pretty abhorrent. The things he claims are his are ... interesting. From what i understand, he put his name on some files by making 1-2 line changes (and requesting his name be added. You can actually see this in the netfilter mailing list history) and then claims copyright to all of it. His interpretations of the GPL are also, well, let's also just go with "interesting". Suffice to say, if patrick was right, there is probably literally no-one in the world who complies with the GPL or LGPL (IE not even the FSF). It's like some of the firms who are suing companies for ridiculous ADA violations (not the "you have no wheelchair access to the movie theater" type), or non-existent violations of california's prop 65 (the cancer warning). From a social perspective, it's one thing if they actually care, and are trying to cure those violations, and get companies to a care. But in a lot of cases, they don't care. They don't want you to fix it, they want to make money. In fact, it's better for them if you don't fix it. They strain the boundaries of the law, etc, in that attempt to make money. Do they have the right to do so? Yeah, sure. But it's pretty damn scummy in the opinion of a lot of people. [1] The reason nobody who has knowledge talks about this is because a lot of this is being done (by Patrick) in ways to make sure it must be kept private (again, that's what other lawyers tell me) and out of the public eye. So one of the reasons you don't see blog posts detailing exactly what is going on is because people are legally not allowed to talk about it (AFAIK)

Tomte 10y ago
If his interpretations are as outlandish as you say he'll certainly lose whenever someone pushes back. Has Schilling ever "won" an argument? Considering that McHardy seems to go after companies and not some poor individual, I suppose that pushback will occur. If I take your claims at face value (and I tend to do so), then the FSF and SFC side still doesn't look good. They are basically saying that (a) whenever they're (potentially) interested in enforcing the GPL nobody else may also do that (b) they reserve the right not to collect what the developers are owed(!), in order to further their institutional and philosophical goals To hell with them! I'm certainly supporting any individual developer's right to enforce the GPL, and maybe even especially agains FSF/SFC's wishes.
- Anon211 10y ago
  A company --rather than push back and follow the expensive legal route with an (even slightly) uncertain, delayed outcome-- is much more inclined to try to settle by paying some amount of money. Of course, in following the typical blackmail scenario, this makes the company even more vulnerable to subsequent similar requests. Regarding what can be disclosed, my understanding is the same as of DannyBee above (not first-hand knowledge, obviously), so I cannot say whether this is the modus operandi in case here.

Tomte 10y ago

If his interpretations are as outlandish as you say he'll certainly lose whenever someone pushes back. Has Schilling ever "won" an argument? Considering that McHardy seems to go after companies and not some poor individual, I suppose that pushback will occur. If I take your claims at face value (and I tend to do so), then the FSF and SFC side still doesn't look good. They are basically saying that (a) whenever they're (potentially) interested in enforcing the GPL nobody else may also do that (b) they reserve the right not to collect what the developers are owed(!), in order to further their institutional and philosophical goals To hell with them! I'm certainly supporting any individual developer's right to enforce the GPL, and maybe even especially agains FSF/SFC's wishes.

Anon211 10y ago
A company --rather than push back and follow the expensive legal route with an (even slightly) uncertain, delayed outcome-- is much more inclined to try to settle by paying some amount of money. Of course, in following the typical blackmail scenario, this makes the company even more vulnerable to subsequent similar requests. Regarding what can be disclosed, my understanding is the same as of DannyBee above (not first-hand knowledge, obviously), so I cannot say whether this is the modus operandi in case here.