5 ms·

The GPL has been regularly violated by huge multi-billion dollar corporations. But the FSF has had a policy of favoring compliance and forgiveness over punishm

by nullc 5y ago

The GPL has been regularly violated by huge multi-billion dollar corporations. But the FSF has had a policy of favoring compliance and forgiveness over punishment, and they've aggressively avoided litigation-- instead preferring to negotiate for compliance with goodwill loss as the threat-- to the point of contributing to some splits in free software. E.g. this is a point of disagreement between SFC and FSF.

warp 5y ago
There doesn't seem to be any disagreement on GPL enforcement between SFC and FSF: - https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm... - https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
- nullc 5y ago
  They don't disagree on the general ideology, at least on paper, but when it comes to enforcement actions SFC is much more prone to litigate than the FSF. IIRC FSF has only sued once, conservancy has like 100x the rate of lawsuits per years-existed. :P
bombcar 5y ago
Haven't a significant number of the multi-billion dollar violations turned out to be rather "oh we didn't know" as opposed to intentional malice?
bluGill 5y ago
Compliance and forgiveness is probably the best policy anyway: courts will consider intentions. Companies that are sued for a violation and can tell the judge "look at the evidence: we have a history of doing the right thing and messed up in this one case" get a tiny slap and continue one. By having a reputation of make right and we won't sue companies have nothing to lose by making right. By having a history of suing they will win some cases, but many of them the total gained will be less than laywer fees because of all the companies that are able to say "we tried to make right but they rejected this reasonable offer". Also, what if a company decides to ignore the GPL and pay up? The courts and law understand monetary damages. The FSF runs the risk of the judge deciding that the code is already out there, and the value the code is $X: therefore the infringer should reasonably buy a license for $X and doesn't have to give source code back. This would violate the spirit of the GPL, but would fit the letter of the law.
- nullc 5y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with the FSF's approach. But the fact that the FSF hasn't in fact litigated isn't by itself a reason that preserving the clear ability to litigate isn't useful. We don't know how many cases an infringer was made more likely to come into compliance by the fact that work had clear ownership, particularly because the FSF has avoided litigation when they had other avenues open.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    The FSF only needs some of the code to litigate though. It is better own everything, but that only is a factor after the case is done, if the FSF owns 20% of the code, then they get 20% of the total possible value of the infringement. (likely after lawyer fees, and class-action can apply) It is easier if they own all the code, but it isn't required.
    - wahern 5y ago
      > It is easier if they own all the code, but it isn't required. It's not that simple. For joint works any single author can grant rights to the entire work. Do you know what the caselaw is regarding joint works as applied to typical FOSS projects? I don't. But I suspect it's less than crystal clear (see, e.g., https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999185 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999185) and therefore creates significant risk when attempting enforcement. Litigation is costly, and a wrinkle like this could potentially be exploited by an infringer to drag out an enforcement case for many years.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > For joint works any single author can grant rights to the entire work. That doesn't sound right - why would anyone ever contribute to a joint work if the other author can sell it to a publisher on their own? Wouldn't they then just take all the royalties and leave you with nothing?
        5y ago

by nullc 5y ago

warp 5y ago

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement on GPL enforcement between SFC and FSF: - https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm... - https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles

nullc 5y ago
They don't disagree on the general ideology, at least on paper, but when it comes to enforcement actions SFC is much more prone to litigate than the FSF. IIRC FSF has only sued once, conservancy has like 100x the rate of lawsuits per years-existed. :P

bombcar 5y ago

Haven't a significant number of the multi-billion dollar violations turned out to be rather "oh we didn't know" as opposed to intentional malice?

bluGill 5y ago

Compliance and forgiveness is probably the best policy anyway: courts will consider intentions. Companies that are sued for a violation and can tell the judge "look at the evidence: we have a history of doing the right thing and messed up in this one case" get a tiny slap and continue one. By having a reputation of make right and we won't sue companies have nothing to lose by making right. By having a history of suing they will win some cases, but many of them the total gained will be less than laywer fees because of all the companies that are able to say "we tried to make right but they rejected this reasonable offer". Also, what if a company decides to ignore the GPL and pay up? The courts and law understand monetary damages. The FSF runs the risk of the judge deciding that the code is already out there, and the value the code is $X: therefore the infringer should reasonably buy a license for $X and doesn't have to give source code back. This would violate the spirit of the GPL, but would fit the letter of the law.

nullc 5y ago
I'm not disagreeing with the FSF's approach. But the fact that the FSF hasn't in fact litigated isn't by itself a reason that preserving the clear ability to litigate isn't useful. We don't know how many cases an infringer was made more likely to come into compliance by the fact that work had clear ownership, particularly because the FSF has avoided litigation when they had other avenues open.
- bluGill 5y ago
  The FSF only needs some of the code to litigate though. It is better own everything, but that only is a factor after the case is done, if the FSF owns 20% of the code, then they get 20% of the total possible value of the infringement. (likely after lawyer fees, and class-action can apply) It is easier if they own all the code, but it isn't required.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > It is easier if they own all the code, but it isn't required. It's not that simple. For joint works any single author can grant rights to the entire work. Do you know what the caselaw is regarding joint works as applied to typical FOSS projects? I don't. But I suspect it's less than crystal clear (see, e.g., https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999185 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999185) and therefore creates significant risk when attempting enforcement. Litigation is costly, and a wrinkle like this could potentially be exploited by an infringer to drag out an enforcement case for many years.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > For joint works any single author can grant rights to the entire work. That doesn't sound right - why would anyone ever contribute to a joint work if the other author can sell it to a publisher on their own? Wouldn't they then just take all the royalties and leave you with nothing?
      - 5y ago