5 ms·

My biggest problem with the GPL (any variant) is that I don't believe that any organization that exists today (including the SF Conservancy and the Linux Founda

by ohazi 5y ago

My biggest problem with the GPL (any variant) is that I don't believe that any organization that exists today (including the SF Conservancy and the Linux Foundation) is capable of enforcing it to the degree desired by the software freedom die-hards. I say this as a software freedom die-hard myself. In theory, you can cook up any license terms you want, but in practice, you need money and resources and the will fight in court if you actually want to enforce it. If you can't or won't enforce it, your silly terms may as well not exist. Unfortunately, the nature of how proprietary software is distributed makes discovery of a violation inordinately difficult, and even when you do discover a violation, challenges are rare, and victories in court even moreso. I don't see the point of debating the minutia of what you think the GPLv2 requires in one very specific instance, when there are probably 2-5 orders of magnitude more violators than anybody's best estimate. Who cares what you think the letter of the license requires when it takes you ten years to get one company to make a passive-aggressive change to a now obsolete product, when thousands of violators don't even follow the spirit of the license? This feels like such a wasted effort. Get your priorities in order.

pabs3 5y ago
Conservancy recently got a grant for compliance work, and are working on an enforcement action in the IoT space: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber... The bigger problem is that outside of the FSF and Conservancy, large amounts of the Linux developer community and several ostensibly Free Software companies/organisations do not want the GPL to be enforced at all.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  There has been relatively high levels of support for normal / standard GPLv2 enforcement. That said, the FSF and Conservancy like to pick more edge cases and go to absolute war on them. That doesn't generate as much support it is true and a lot of parts of the GPLv3 push also rubbed folks the wrong way. "Linus says says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU is but one of many many examples here.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Even relaxed "we only care about source release" GPLv2 enforcement is not desirable to Linus and other Linux developers.
    - NavinF 5y ago
      And for good reason! Linus and Greg KH's reasoning for avoiding lawsuits: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...
      - pabs3 5y ago
        The principles used by FSF/Conservancy operate their copyleft compliance efforts under are eminently reasonable and make it clear that lawsuits are a last resort that are only used when the violator is being unreasonable and blatantly violating the licenses. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        Yes it's incredibly difficult for someone to understand something if their salary depends on not understanding it. It's important to note that Linux would likely not exist if PC makers had used the same lockdown methods as used today. Moreover when GKH and Linus talk about how GPL enforcement has done nothing good, they conveniently leave out the success of WRT enforcement, which caused one of the biggest Linux offshoots, largely based on volunteer work. Finally, the audacity of saying "let's talk about legal things without lawyers present" is such a typical software engineer thing, just imagine the reaction someone was proposing to talk about kernel programming without any kernel programmers present
        AstralStorm 5y ago
        BSD as in the software distribution almost didn't get to exist thanks to a lawsuit, but once that was cleared it was out. It Linux didn't exist, it would have taken over the niche. Linux itself is not that special - it mostly is a case of right place and right time.
- singpolyma3 5y ago
  And even tbe FSF hasn't really done any enforcement in years. And major copyright holders on large GPL codebases (coughLinux) oppose any and all enforcement actions.
michaelmrose 5y ago
A minority of rich companies with lawyers to spare violate the GPL on some occasions without consequences. A fact you want to quantify by just making up a number and your conclusion is that based on your guess its not working and we ought to do what exactly? Reduce the barrier to nothing based on you not feeling actual enforcement would be too expensive or hard to obtain? You didn't really say.
lakecresva 5y ago
Commercial users still take copyright issues pretty seriously because of the remedies available to copyright holders under title 17. Even if an author doesn't register the copyright until they want to begin the suit (you lose statutory damages and attorneys fees this way), they can get an injunction against further distribution and disgorgement of profits from the infringing work, so if you get caught, your product is dead and has made (you) no money. This is also why the FSF/SFLC has like a 100% success rate when it comes to extracting highly favorable settlements. Without a doubt people still infringe, but it's not a complete free for all.
- pabs3 5y ago
  BTW, SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) != SFC (Software Freedom Conservancy).
- singpolyma3 5y ago
  Definitely not a 100% success rate and I question "highly favorable" when settlements almost never result in a complete end to infringement by even the one entity settling and are so slow and expensive to get that thousands more spring up in the meantime...
  - lakecresva 5y ago
    If you have access to legal databases like Westlaw/Lexis, you can look up the lawsuits the FSF and SFLC have been a party to. All of those suits were settled and the plaintiffs secure monetary compensation, disclosure of the source code, and in some cases the ability to pre-screen future releases to make sure they're complying with the GPL. The reason why many shops take copyright seriously or ban the use of GPL software (you can argue either way that the latter is or is not a victory for the GPL) is because this creates a deterrent effect.
arminiusreturns 5y ago
To be fair, if you listen to Eben Moglen and some of the other big minds behind gpl(v3), it becomes readily apparent they have been working to build up strong methods to deal with this very problem by using a delaying tactic. I think they might be onto something. Regardless, Eben is such a mind you owe it to yourself to listen to some of his talks.
ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
> as a software freedom die-hard myself. > gpl is too difficult to enforce. throw hands up in the air riiiigth.
goodpoint 5y ago
> I don't believe that any organization ... is capable of enforcing Big companies are very capable, and often happy, to sue each other for reasons including breach of patent, copyright, trademark and much more. This includes GPL breaches. The point of GPL is to build an ecosystem and create "herd immunity" against bad actors. Protecting the rights of a lone developer VS a large corporation can be expensive and difficult - not because of the GPL - but because of how the legal system works in most parts of the world. But that is besides the point. What matters is building an ecosystem where 99% of the important entities do not systematically violate the license, and this is already happening.
- singpolyma3 5y ago
  Can you name a major tech company not actively violating the GPL (not to mention untold MIT and BSD licenses on JavaScript...) I'm not sure I can
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Oh, many don't violate GPL by avoiding it like the plague (esp. GPL 3) and complying with the terms when they cannot. BSD tends to be easier to comply to by including a license note somewhere within the manual or software. MIT has even fewer terms.

by ohazi 5y ago

pabs3 5y ago

Conservancy recently got a grant for compliance work, and are working on an enforcement action in the IoT space: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber... The bigger problem is that outside of the FSF and Conservancy, large amounts of the Linux developer community and several ostensibly Free Software companies/organisations do not want the GPL to be enforced at all.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
There has been relatively high levels of support for normal / standard GPLv2 enforcement. That said, the FSF and Conservancy like to pick more edge cases and go to absolute war on them. That doesn't generate as much support it is true and a lot of parts of the GPLv3 push also rubbed folks the wrong way. "Linus says says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU is but one of many many examples here.
- pabs3 5y ago
  Even relaxed "we only care about source release" GPLv2 enforcement is not desirable to Linus and other Linux developers.
  - NavinF 5y ago
    And for good reason! Linus and Greg KH's reasoning for avoiding lawsuits: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...
    - pabs3 5y ago
      The principles used by FSF/Conservancy operate their copyleft compliance efforts under are eminently reasonable and make it clear that lawsuits are a last resort that are only used when the violator is being unreasonable and blatantly violating the licenses. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Yes it's incredibly difficult for someone to understand something if their salary depends on not understanding it. It's important to note that Linux would likely not exist if PC makers had used the same lockdown methods as used today. Moreover when GKH and Linus talk about how GPL enforcement has done nothing good, they conveniently leave out the success of WRT enforcement, which caused one of the biggest Linux offshoots, largely based on volunteer work. Finally, the audacity of saying "let's talk about legal things without lawyers present" is such a typical software engineer thing, just imagine the reaction someone was proposing to talk about kernel programming without any kernel programmers present
      - AstralStorm 5y ago
        BSD as in the software distribution almost didn't get to exist thanks to a lawsuit, but once that was cleared it was out. It Linux didn't exist, it would have taken over the niche. Linux itself is not that special - it mostly is a case of right place and right time.
singpolyma3 5y ago
And even tbe FSF hasn't really done any enforcement in years. And major copyright holders on large GPL codebases (coughLinux) oppose any and all enforcement actions.

michaelmrose 5y ago

A minority of rich companies with lawyers to spare violate the GPL on some occasions without consequences. A fact you want to quantify by just making up a number and your conclusion is that based on your guess its not working and we ought to do what exactly? Reduce the barrier to nothing based on you not feeling actual enforcement would be too expensive or hard to obtain? You didn't really say.

lakecresva 5y ago

Commercial users still take copyright issues pretty seriously because of the remedies available to copyright holders under title 17. Even if an author doesn't register the copyright until they want to begin the suit (you lose statutory damages and attorneys fees this way), they can get an injunction against further distribution and disgorgement of profits from the infringing work, so if you get caught, your product is dead and has made (you) no money. This is also why the FSF/SFLC has like a 100% success rate when it comes to extracting highly favorable settlements. Without a doubt people still infringe, but it's not a complete free for all.

pabs3 5y ago
BTW, SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) != SFC (Software Freedom Conservancy).
singpolyma3 5y ago
Definitely not a 100% success rate and I question "highly favorable" when settlements almost never result in a complete end to infringement by even the one entity settling and are so slow and expensive to get that thousands more spring up in the meantime...
- lakecresva 5y ago
  If you have access to legal databases like Westlaw/Lexis, you can look up the lawsuits the FSF and SFLC have been a party to. All of those suits were settled and the plaintiffs secure monetary compensation, disclosure of the source code, and in some cases the ability to pre-screen future releases to make sure they're complying with the GPL. The reason why many shops take copyright seriously or ban the use of GPL software (you can argue either way that the latter is or is not a victory for the GPL) is because this creates a deterrent effect.

arminiusreturns 5y ago

To be fair, if you listen to Eben Moglen and some of the other big minds behind gpl(v3), it becomes readily apparent they have been working to build up strong methods to deal with this very problem by using a delaying tactic. I think they might be onto something. Regardless, Eben is such a mind you owe it to yourself to listen to some of his talks.

ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago

> as a software freedom die-hard myself. > gpl is too difficult to enforce. throw hands up in the air riiiigth.

goodpoint 5y ago

> I don't believe that any organization ... is capable of enforcing Big companies are very capable, and often happy, to sue each other for reasons including breach of patent, copyright, trademark and much more. This includes GPL breaches. The point of GPL is to build an ecosystem and create "herd immunity" against bad actors. Protecting the rights of a lone developer VS a large corporation can be expensive and difficult - not because of the GPL - but because of how the legal system works in most parts of the world. But that is besides the point. What matters is building an ecosystem where 99% of the important entities do not systematically violate the license, and this is already happening.

singpolyma3 5y ago
Can you name a major tech company not actively violating the GPL (not to mention untold MIT and BSD licenses on JavaScript...) I'm not sure I can
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Oh, many don't violate GPL by avoiding it like the plague (esp. GPL 3) and complying with the terms when they cannot. BSD tends to be easier to comply to by including a license note somewhere within the manual or software. MIT has even fewer terms.