7 ms·

In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about t

In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?

detaro 9y ago
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future is better than a device with a closed system and no chance of getting it opened because the manufacturer was scared of legal consequences of using Linux.
- sametmax 9y ago
  But if the licence is not enforced, then what's the point of writing it or using it ? Put it under WTFL. Shorter, less paper work.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Define "gently", because that doesn't seems like a term that goes well with enforcement, which contains the root "force".
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.
        sametmax 9y ago
        No it hasn't. That's not enforcement. The community choose not to enforce. "gently" has nothing to do with it. I get that this is a preference, and they make the software and choose the licence so this is their choice. But that's not enforcement. It basically means you can do whatever you want with it. And hence people do. The system works because a few are giving away a lot while most benefit from it with taking without giving back anything. This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. Because, well, we let them.
        icebraining 9y ago
        This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. In what way would a vigorous enforcement of the GPL prevent any of that? The only even remotely related to the GPL is TiVo, and even then it wasn't lack of enforcement, the version of the license simply didn't prevent it, hence GPLv3.
      - julienfr112 9y ago
        oxymoron, right ? like a benevolent punishment, a liberating constrain ... Come on, we are in the same boat here, we agree Linux (and Wikipedia and ...) are amazing things. And we all admire and cheer the contributors and so on. Don't be mad when we point a small incoherence. It's like opening an issue, close it if you have a large support of the community, but please, spend 5 minutes thinking about it from a new point a view.
  - dizzystar 9y ago
    If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      > If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
      - wiz21c 9y ago
        Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...
- Hydraulix989 9y ago
  Tell that to Richard Stallman.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    As others have pointed out, the FSF (founded and headed by Stallman) has the same position.
- na85 9y ago
  If they don't care about companies leeching off of free work, why not license it under BSD? The whole point of the GPL is that it's an enforceable license.
  - deathanatos 9y ago
    They do care about companies leeching off of free work, is the point; they just don't want the outcome to be financial gain, rather, they want the companies to stop "leeching", and rather contribute their contributions back to the community, so that others can benefit from the work just as they benefited from the work those before them did. (This "contribute back" aspect is, IMO, the core difference between MIT/BSD and the GPL.)
    - belltaco 9y ago
      But the companies that are forced to pay out large amounts are going to be more careful next time and release their contributions as source code. Same with other companies that see this going on. That's a win for Linux and GPL code.
      - shakna 9y ago
        In my experience, they'll either be much more careful about hiding their reliance, or just strip Linux out of everything. Not contribute back.
        older 9y ago
        Could you give an example? Any company that stripped Linux out of their product?
        shakna 9y ago
        Not without breaching an NDA. But how about a public case? Verizon got caught breaching the GPL with Busybox.[!] At the end of the day, they agreed to become compliant... And Busybox is no longer a product they use or distribute. [0][1] [!] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-ver... [0] https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/equipment/open-source-software https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/equipme... [1] https://github.com/verizon https://github.com/verizon
- belorn 9y ago
  Its hard to say with any amount of certainty what the 15000 developers from practically every country in the world believes in regard to copyright. FSF and the SF Conservancy is attempting to try to bring a consensus to that issue, but that too is a contentious discussion. Some vocal developers has some views, the Linus Torvald has his, the Linux Foundation has theirs, and not counting everyone else which has a stake in the issue. In general it seems that the overall ecosystem seek compliance but I suspect even the effort to try establishing that as a consensus and have it written down as an official policy of the project would be an uphill battle. An interesting aspect that this judge brought on is the statement that the 15000 developers should not be considered co-authors of the linux kernel as a whole but rather defined in the German law as "editing authors" with limited rights compared to co-authors. It might mean that Linus, if any, is the only one that can make enforcement for the project as a whole.
megous 9y ago
Because the goal is achieving compliance (something that would benefit everyone), not punishment (something that just benefits the author).
- geezerjay 9y ago
  It's also rather obvious that pursuing a policy based on punishment would hinder the adoption of any software licensed under any free software license, and also have a negative impact on the community's public image.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I don't see how that's clear at all - it's only harming those who knowingly choose not to comply. Suing such people says we care about making software (F)OSS, we care enough to ensure people who make a profit from open source give back to the community.
LukeShu 9y ago
Several things: The FSF, and the SF Conservancy (which does the bulk of GPL enforcement) espouse Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1]. The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment. [1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles McHardy wasn't seeking compliance. He was saying "Your license to my portions of the kernel was automatically revoked when you did X. Pay me damages." This could arguably work as a deterrent, but it does nothing to fix the current violation. Additionally, a problem with the GPLv2 is that it is automatically revoked upon violation, and has no reinstatement clauses. If a company violates the GPLv2, and then the SF Conservancy enforces the GPL against them, after it's all worked out, the SF Conservancy can reinstate the license to the portion of the code that the SF Conservancy owns or represents the owners of, but there's still quite a bit of code for which the infringer technically hasn't had its license reinstated for. Even after working everything out with the SF Conservancy, McHardy could say "Ok, but they didn't reinstate your license to the portion of the code that I own. You're infringing on my copyright, pay me damages."
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Thanks; that's very informative. > The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment. Is there some record of the debate, if any, that led to this policy? Clearly, financial costs are a deterrent that leads to compliance. Many laws, regulations, and contracts achieve compliance in this manner. That doesn't make the FSF's position wrong, but I wonder how they reached it. The FSF agrees, to an extent: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize financial gain. Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable. An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial) staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it ...
  - 9y ago
exikyut 9y ago
Because there's no legal and/or social infrastructure in place that demands the bounty hunter shares their winnings. The way things are right now, the bounty hunter could argue that the very idea of the statement above is absurd - and that demonstrates how broken things are. I can't help but agree more and more as time goes by that maybe Linux is getting too big for its own good. I do wonder how it'll topple.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  There's legal precedent. If one dev proves their copyright was infringed by failure to comply with the contractual obligations set through the OSS license, then the court more than likely will find for every other dev too. The "bounty hunter" will get paid the damages against them, not the damages against the community, there's no reason to disperse them. If someone does a hit-and-run and hits several people with their car, one of those people suing and getting damages from the malfeasant isn't a bad thing, nor is it something we should frown on IMO.
  - exikyut 9y ago
    This is very correct, and I can't argue with it. However, the basis of this post was that one person's actions were exploitative from the perspective of the community. I'm just saying it's sad that there wasn't sufficient precedent of some kind to dissuade what happened from occurring.
katastic 9y ago
>In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain That's like getting mad when lawyers make money suing people who pollute the environment. The companies were still in the wrong.
emiliobumachar 9y ago
Quoting from another top-level comment: "If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes." The FSF would be disinterested in the spread of this sort of thinking. That's a good reason against letting bounty hunters loose.

detaro 9y ago

Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future is better than a device with a closed system and no chance of getting it opened because the manufacturer was scared of legal consequences of using Linux.

sametmax 9y ago
But if the licence is not enforced, then what's the point of writing it or using it ? Put it under WTFL. Shorter, less paper work.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Define "gently", because that doesn't seems like a term that goes well with enforcement, which contains the root "force".
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        No it hasn't. That's not enforcement. The community choose not to enforce. "gently" has nothing to do with it. I get that this is a preference, and they make the software and choose the licence so this is their choice. But that's not enforcement. It basically means you can do whatever you want with it. And hence people do. The system works because a few are giving away a lot while most benefit from it with taking without giving back anything. This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. Because, well, we let them.
        icebraining 9y ago
        This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. In what way would a vigorous enforcement of the GPL prevent any of that? The only even remotely related to the GPL is TiVo, and even then it wasn't lack of enforcement, the version of the license simply didn't prevent it, hence GPLv3.
    - julienfr112 9y ago
      oxymoron, right ? like a benevolent punishment, a liberating constrain ... Come on, we are in the same boat here, we agree Linux (and Wikipedia and ...) are amazing things. And we all admire and cheer the contributors and so on. Don't be mad when we point a small incoherence. It's like opening an issue, close it if you have a large support of the community, but please, spend 5 minutes thinking about it from a new point a view.
- dizzystar 9y ago
  If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    > If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
    - wiz21c 9y ago
      Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...
Hydraulix989 9y ago
Tell that to Richard Stallman.
- icebraining 9y ago
  As others have pointed out, the FSF (founded and headed by Stallman) has the same position.
na85 9y ago
If they don't care about companies leeching off of free work, why not license it under BSD? The whole point of the GPL is that it's an enforceable license.
- deathanatos 9y ago
  They do care about companies leeching off of free work, is the point; they just don't want the outcome to be financial gain, rather, they want the companies to stop "leeching", and rather contribute their contributions back to the community, so that others can benefit from the work just as they benefited from the work those before them did. (This "contribute back" aspect is, IMO, the core difference between MIT/BSD and the GPL.)
  - belltaco 9y ago
    But the companies that are forced to pay out large amounts are going to be more careful next time and release their contributions as source code. Same with other companies that see this going on. That's a win for Linux and GPL code.
    - shakna 9y ago
      In my experience, they'll either be much more careful about hiding their reliance, or just strip Linux out of everything. Not contribute back.
      - older 9y ago
        Could you give an example? Any company that stripped Linux out of their product?
        shakna 9y ago
        Not without breaching an NDA. But how about a public case? Verizon got caught breaching the GPL with Busybox.[!] At the end of the day, they agreed to become compliant... And Busybox is no longer a product they use or distribute. [0][1] [!] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-ver... [0] https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/equipment/open-source-software https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/equipme... [1] https://github.com/verizon https://github.com/verizon
belorn 9y ago
Its hard to say with any amount of certainty what the 15000 developers from practically every country in the world believes in regard to copyright. FSF and the SF Conservancy is attempting to try to bring a consensus to that issue, but that too is a contentious discussion. Some vocal developers has some views, the Linus Torvald has his, the Linux Foundation has theirs, and not counting everyone else which has a stake in the issue. In general it seems that the overall ecosystem seek compliance but I suspect even the effort to try establishing that as a consensus and have it written down as an official policy of the project would be an uphill battle. An interesting aspect that this judge brought on is the statement that the 15000 developers should not be considered co-authors of the linux kernel as a whole but rather defined in the German law as "editing authors" with limited rights compared to co-authors. It might mean that Linus, if any, is the only one that can make enforcement for the project as a whole.

megous 9y ago

Because the goal is achieving compliance (something that would benefit everyone), not punishment (something that just benefits the author).

geezerjay 9y ago
It's also rather obvious that pursuing a policy based on punishment would hinder the adoption of any software licensed under any free software license, and also have a negative impact on the community's public image.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I don't see how that's clear at all - it's only harming those who knowingly choose not to comply. Suing such people says we care about making software (F)OSS, we care enough to ensure people who make a profit from open source give back to the community.

LukeShu 9y ago

Several things: The FSF, and the SF Conservancy (which does the bulk of GPL enforcement) espouse Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1]. The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment. [1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles McHardy wasn't seeking compliance. He was saying "Your license to my portions of the kernel was automatically revoked when you did X. Pay me damages." This could arguably work as a deterrent, but it does nothing to fix the current violation. Additionally, a problem with the GPLv2 is that it is automatically revoked upon violation, and has no reinstatement clauses. If a company violates the GPLv2, and then the SF Conservancy enforces the GPL against them, after it's all worked out, the SF Conservancy can reinstate the license to the portion of the code that the SF Conservancy owns or represents the owners of, but there's still quite a bit of code for which the infringer technically hasn't had its license reinstated for. Even after working everything out with the SF Conservancy, McHardy could say "Ok, but they didn't reinstate your license to the portion of the code that I own. You're infringing on my copyright, pay me damages."

forapurpose 9y ago
Thanks; that's very informative. > The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment. Is there some record of the debate, if any, that led to this policy? Clearly, financial costs are a deterrent that leads to compliance. Many laws, regulations, and contracts achieve compliance in this manner. That doesn't make the FSF's position wrong, but I wonder how they reached it. The FSF agrees, to an extent: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize financial gain. Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable. An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial) staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it ...
- 9y ago

exikyut 9y ago

Because there's no legal and/or social infrastructure in place that demands the bounty hunter shares their winnings. The way things are right now, the bounty hunter could argue that the very idea of the statement above is absurd - and that demonstrates how broken things are. I can't help but agree more and more as time goes by that maybe Linux is getting too big for its own good. I do wonder how it'll topple.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
There's legal precedent. If one dev proves their copyright was infringed by failure to comply with the contractual obligations set through the OSS license, then the court more than likely will find for every other dev too. The "bounty hunter" will get paid the damages against them, not the damages against the community, there's no reason to disperse them. If someone does a hit-and-run and hits several people with their car, one of those people suing and getting damages from the malfeasant isn't a bad thing, nor is it something we should frown on IMO.
- exikyut 9y ago
  This is very correct, and I can't argue with it. However, the basis of this post was that one person's actions were exploitative from the perspective of the community. I'm just saying it's sad that there wasn't sufficient precedent of some kind to dissuade what happened from occurring.

katastic 9y ago

>In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain That's like getting mad when lawyers make money suing people who pollute the environment. The companies were still in the wrong.

emiliobumachar 9y ago

Quoting from another top-level comment: "If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes." The FSF would be disinterested in the spread of this sort of thinking. That's a good reason against letting bounty hunters loose.