3 ms·
Yes, and it is nice that they are doing it. But they are limited by their manpower and financials. And they are not agressive enough imho, e.g. by avoiding liti
by corty 5y ago
Yes, and it is nice that they are doing it. But they are limited by their manpower and financials. And they are not agressive enough imho, e.g. by avoiding litigation and extending courtesies like voluntary GPL2 extensions after termination for offenders. They should engage more in shock and awe. Compliance departments all over the industry should fear them, not laugh about them.
- pabs3 5y agoAgreed that they are limited, hopefully the grant they got for enforcement actions will improve that. They don't avoid litigation where necessary, for example their action against Linksys over the WRT54G router resulted in the creation of the OpenWRT project. They are planning more litigation in the IoT space using the grant money. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st... https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber... Personally I think the principles they operate under (including extending GPLv3 termination to GPLv2) are fairly reasonable, I don't think unintentional/short-term violations should be punished harshly. I definitely agree that companies that refuse to come into compliance need more incentives to change their behaviour. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...