6 ms·

Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL. Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL

Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL. Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable. The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. This would let them leverage a very extreme position to after the fact re-write what the licensing meant. BTW, they have a long history of this poor behavior. Here is Linus Torvalds notes on them. "I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds Note this goes hand in hand with others attempts to re-write the GPL following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF. This involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history but doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all. This shows that once you get the lawyers involved, it's seriously game over in some cases. Even though they were not lawyers, the early folks created very useful clear licenses.

simulate-me 4y ago
It depends on your viewpoint. GPL code authors rarely have the means to pursue legal action in response to license violations. As a result, GPL code is generally "stolen" with impunity.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this. "As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems" - https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ Here is the SFC's issue (came up when busybox replacements were discussed) "What can we do? The real problem here is that the SFC's reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement." What's weird is despite NO significant copyright holder going along with SFC, they keep on marching forward as if they are backed by folks creating this code.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. This is why you don't want lawyers calling the shots. Lawyers are looking to get paid, they'd rather get a cash settlement than get the code. If the lawyers are working for you, the copyright holder, then you can choose how to handle the situation. But if you sign the code over to the lawyers, it will no longer be your call.
    - simulate-me 4y ago
      The legal fees would add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. There just aren't many people / organizations who have that kind of money to spend just to get some open source code. Perhaps adding some language about legal fees would make the license more attractive to lawyers.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference: 1) The violator release their code under the GPL, as the license said they should have. 2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me. If a lawyer offers to represent me pro bono and help me get the code, with no talk of getting paid, I'd accept that offer. I wrote the code with no expectation of getting paid for it. If a lawyer wants donate his labor to the project as I donated mine, that's fine with me. Otherwise, the lawyer can crawl up his own ass and die there. I'd rather have scenario #2 than see a lawyer getting paid to sue somebody over my code.
        simulate-me 4y ago
        My point is that the GPL should include a clause that if you sue for a breach of contract and win, then the violator of the license needs to pay your legal fees. This would (theoretically) allow a lawyer to sue with your permission and on your behalf and get paid while still forcing the infringer to respect the contract and release their code.
chii 4y ago
> others attempts to re-write the GPL what does this mean? Is it a rewrite if the interpretation changes? How does one infer what the person granting this license "really meant"? I think it's wrong not to get lawyers involved, because the laymen gets legalese interpretation wrong all the time (and it's an easy mistake to make - "doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all"). GPL enforcement should be scary - banking on the folks who owns the copyright not enforcing it should not be possible. Selective enforcement should not be a thing either. This can only be possible if an overarching entity with funding does the enforcement.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever. This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL. This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code. What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part. https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 for an article and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general. The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this. I think the SFC is pushing that but I don't follow closely enough. What is remarkable is just how few developers have gotten on board with this group.
invokestatic 4y ago
> following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF Surely you mean GNU and not EFF.
stefan_ 4y ago
It appears to me that this post of yours involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history while the GPL continues to be ignored (look no further than e.g. Tesla). Where is the hyperbolic let them leverage a very extreme position when some open source project asks for copyright assignment?
- onphonenow 4y ago
  The issue the SFC has had is that folks like Linus and other developers are not interested AT ALL in their approach to enforcement or their interpretation of the GPL. Since code talks and talk walks, they are not left with a ton. The Affero GPLv3 fell totally flat. GPLv3 pretty flat (Samba was a big adopter maybe? Not sure what growth they saw after that). Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book). So if they can get folks to assign them the copyright, that will let them start chasing again. I'm not handwaving, I cited the article, the youtube video. This is pretty well known as a debate.
  - athrun 4y ago
    > Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book). indeed. Tragedy is the right word!
jcranmer 4y ago
> "I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds This is fundamentally a pretty stupid take on the issue, to be honest. I can understand why Linus might want to ignore the SF Conservancy in particular here, but banning all lawyers in general is a stupid idea when you're discussing legal documents (that's what software licenses are). It's akin to saying "let's talk about why our car isn't working but NO CAR MECHANICS ALLOWED." If what you're talking about is legal issues, you absolutely should involve lawyers, and generally earlier is better. This is particularly true when intellectual property is involved, as neglecting to take certain actions can completely foreclose future legal remedies.
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > has long been known to be nonsense could any statement be less substantiated than pure FUD like that?
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    I'm just curious here. If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid". Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration. The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't get along with others (including each other, witness the battles between SFC and SFLC etc etc) with little value creation themselves want to force their view on others, even though folks have already voted with their feet. By all means create the Affero GPLv3. Try to get folks to write software for it. That's fine. But don't pretend to be on some moral high ground speaking for developers / creators who wrote the code. Let them speak for themselves. And don't go back and having lost the effort to get Affero GPLv3 or whatever adopted close the various SAAS and Tivo loopholes, go back and say some old license has these terms.
bawolff 4y ago
> The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. Do you have a source for this claim. Unless you just mean, that they are suing people on behalf of the creator of the code (But without creating it themselves), in which case I would say you are being extremely misleading. Why would they have legal standing if they are not the copyright owner? Certainly you can't do it against the will of the copyright owner, as the copyright owner is allowed to give new licenses to anyone they want under whatever terms they want. Edit: i stand corrected.
- garaetjjte 4y ago
  This is described by post itself: >The lawsuit we filed last year against Vizio takes an approach more appropriate for widely marketed and available consumer devices. Namely, the claim in Vizio is a contract claim for third-party beneficiary rights under the GPL, which will allow us (and all other customers who bought Vizio TV's) to receive the repair and modification instructions to the software more directly. I don't think this is against the spirit of GPL, after all the focus of it is user freedom (though arguably GPLv2 ended up weaker than expected by FSF (TiVo hole), and then FSF strongly pushed to switch to GPLv3 while ignoring that some developers deliberately preferred v2 terms).
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    You are adopting the SFC's flawed analysis here. The rights to the code belong to the AUTHOR of the code. Random users have no rights. The GPL is a grant to someone to use code without payment. Failure to follow the GPL means the AUTHORS rights are restored and license to use freely revoked. Again, users have no claim in this situation. This SFC interpretation of third party rights is ridiculous. I hope some of the bigger hitters in this space come out with some statements on this.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.
HWR_14 4y ago
> If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases That never made sense to me. AFAIK, in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages. If all the SF Conservancy wants is the ability to sue violators, why aren't they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project. Then, they can have standing to sue. Of course, it doesn't give them standing to license everyone else's code, but if they want to sue it works.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely. no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.
    - im3w1l 4y ago
      Maybe I misunderstand the legal situation here, but if "they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project", then they would only have standing to sue regarding those specific lines right? Unless they can get other contributors on board.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        Standard IANAL, but I have to deal with copyright issues sometimes. Yes, they would only have standing to sue based on those lines and any lines based on them as a derivative work. I'd imagine that if they showed they were good custodians of suing people (making it easy to get back in compliance as opposed to trying to milk people of money) they could get people to join them on a case-by-case basis. Even without that, they don't have to prove the value of the code that was used. You can sue for copyright infringement based on a standard damage instead, which is assumed to be 10k-250k per violation.
not2b 4y ago
I assume that you're talking about this: https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-vizio-in-lawsuit-alleging-gpl-violations https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-v... The GPL (version 2 or 3) says that if someone distributes a binary of a GPL-covered program, the person who receives the binary is entitled to receive source code. So the Conservancy brought an action on behalf of users: look, the text says you owe us source code. Please provide it. Apparently you think that this is a "scary new approach". But the GPL was written to protect users.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users. Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter. I've no doubt they will drag this issue out in circles forever. But you pretty much know that if they aren't willing to litigate a copyright license in the normal venue - they've got a problem :) This is what is so worrisome. Now we hear from the SFC that a GPL violation is NOT a copyright violation? This is a ridiculous and yes, extreme interpretation of what most developers would have understood. Let's check back in on this in the future and see if they can even keep this in state court to try and avoid copyright law.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    SFC didn't say that a GPL violation isn't a copyright violation, obviously it is. The Vizio lawsuit is simply an attempt at an alternative approach to achieving GPL compliance. There are a lot more ways to do that than just suing over copyright; for example you can get customs to seize the non-compliant devices as they enter the country, which Matthew Garret did to some Android tablets many years ago. The Vizio lawsuit is their first attempt at expanding the variety of compliance actions they can take. The Vizio lawsuit is kind of brilliant, since if they win it means that anyone can sue for GPL compliance, not just the copyright holder, which should make compliance much more common.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users. A “license” (copyright or otherwise) is either a gratuitous license or a contract, and, while there are some important legal differences, gratuitous licenses are generally enforced under contract principles. So, generally, contract law applies to licenses. Generally, the FSF and related groups have argued that the GPL is a contract license with mutual consideration, and I believe this has prevailed in some cases (it is possible for it to be true in some cases but not all, since contract depends on specific facts between the parties and not the written terms alone.) > Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter. One principle of contract law is that the existence of a contract limits parties to action for breach if the terms are violated by the other party, not whatever action they would have on the underlying rights without the contract.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
> Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable. It is an important principle of the legal system that parties subject to an externality must be powerless to do anything.
webmaven 4y ago
> Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL. > Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable. If you write some code and release it under the GPL, and some company makes a device that includes a modified version of the software, and I buy the device but the company refuses to provide source for their modifications, why should my rights under the GPL depend on you as a developer (and copyright holder) suing the company? The GPL grants the user of the software specific rights and imposes equivalent obligations on whoever the user received the software from. Whether the original developer is busy, uninterested, incapacitated, or even dead should have no impact on my rights as a user. It may be true that a user is not (and perhaps even should not be) able to terminate the company's license to use, modify, and redistribute GPL software (I think that's debatable, since the GPL doesn't condition termination on the copyright owner taking action, but IANAL), but a user receiving the software should damn well be able to insist on receiving the modified source code, and in the face of a refusal to comply, a user should be able to sue. In fact, a class action suit on behalf of all affected users should be possible.

simulate-me 4y ago

It depends on your viewpoint. GPL code authors rarely have the means to pursue legal action in response to license violations. As a result, GPL code is generally "stolen" with impunity.

onphonenow 4y ago
If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this. "As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems" - https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ Here is the SFC's issue (came up when busybox replacements were discussed) "What can we do? The real problem here is that the SFC's reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement." What's weird is despite NO significant copyright holder going along with SFC, they keep on marching forward as if they are backed by folks creating this code.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. This is why you don't want lawyers calling the shots. Lawyers are looking to get paid, they'd rather get a cash settlement than get the code. If the lawyers are working for you, the copyright holder, then you can choose how to handle the situation. But if you sign the code over to the lawyers, it will no longer be your call.
  - simulate-me 4y ago
    The legal fees would add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. There just aren't many people / organizations who have that kind of money to spend just to get some open source code. Perhaps adding some language about legal fees would make the license more attractive to lawyers.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference: 1) The violator release their code under the GPL, as the license said they should have. 2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me. If a lawyer offers to represent me pro bono and help me get the code, with no talk of getting paid, I'd accept that offer. I wrote the code with no expectation of getting paid for it. If a lawyer wants donate his labor to the project as I donated mine, that's fine with me. Otherwise, the lawyer can crawl up his own ass and die there. I'd rather have scenario #2 than see a lawyer getting paid to sue somebody over my code.
      - simulate-me 4y ago
        My point is that the GPL should include a clause that if you sue for a breach of contract and win, then the violator of the license needs to pay your legal fees. This would (theoretically) allow a lawyer to sue with your permission and on your behalf and get paid while still forcing the infringer to respect the contract and release their code.

chii 4y ago

> others attempts to re-write the GPL what does this mean? Is it a rewrite if the interpretation changes? How does one infer what the person granting this license "really meant"? I think it's wrong not to get lawyers involved, because the laymen gets legalese interpretation wrong all the time (and it's an easy mistake to make - "doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all"). GPL enforcement should be scary - banking on the folks who owns the copyright not enforcing it should not be possible. Selective enforcement should not be a thing either. This can only be possible if an overarching entity with funding does the enforcement.

onphonenow 4y ago
Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever. This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL. This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code. What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part. https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 for an article and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general. The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this. I think the SFC is pushing that but I don't follow closely enough. What is remarkable is just how few developers have gotten on board with this group.

invokestatic 4y ago

> following their failures to force through the GPLv3 such as the EFF Surely you mean GNU and not EFF.

stefan_ 4y ago

It appears to me that this post of yours involves lots of handwaving and appeals to history while the GPL continues to be ignored (look no further than e.g. Tesla). Where is the hyperbolic let them leverage a very extreme position when some open source project asks for copyright assignment?

onphonenow 4y ago
The issue the SFC has had is that folks like Linus and other developers are not interested AT ALL in their approach to enforcement or their interpretation of the GPL. Since code talks and talk walks, they are not left with a ton. The Affero GPLv3 fell totally flat. GPLv3 pretty flat (Samba was a big adopter maybe? Not sure what growth they saw after that). Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book). So if they can get folks to assign them the copyright, that will let them start chasing again. I'm not handwaving, I cited the article, the youtube video. This is pretty well known as a debate.
- athrun 4y ago
  > Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book). indeed. Tragedy is the right word!

jcranmer 4y ago

> "I actually think we should talk about GPL enforcement at the kernel summit, because I think it's an important issue," Torvalds gently began, "but we should talk about it the way we talk about other issues: among kernel developers. No lawyers present unless they are in the capacity of a developer and maintainer of actual code, and in particular, absolutely not the Software Freedom Conservancy." - Linus Torvalds This is fundamentally a pretty stupid take on the issue, to be honest. I can understand why Linus might want to ignore the SF Conservancy in particular here, but banning all lawyers in general is a stupid idea when you're discussing legal documents (that's what software licenses are). It's akin to saying "let's talk about why our car isn't working but NO CAR MECHANICS ALLOWED." If what you're talking about is legal issues, you absolutely should involve lawyers, and generally earlier is better. This is particularly true when intellectual property is involved, as neglecting to take certain actions can completely foreclose future legal remedies.

throwaway82652 4y ago
From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > has long been known to be nonsense could any statement be less substantiated than pure FUD like that?
- onphonenow 4y ago
  I'm just curious here. If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid". Especially if my approach has single handedly created the largest body of copyleft / collaborative / open source software out there with massive amounts of actual collaboration. The irony is so strong here. Basically jerks, who can't get along with others (including each other, witness the battles between SFC and SFLC etc etc) with little value creation themselves want to force their view on others, even though folks have already voted with their feet. By all means create the Affero GPLv3. Try to get folks to write software for it. That's fine. But don't pretend to be on some moral high ground speaking for developers / creators who wrote the code. Let them speak for themselves. And don't go back and having lost the effort to get Affero GPLv3 or whatever adopted close the various SAAS and Tivo loopholes, go back and say some old license has these terms.

bawolff 4y ago

> The SF Conservancy is now trying to SUE folks over using GPL code they had no hand in creating. Do you have a source for this claim. Unless you just mean, that they are suing people on behalf of the creator of the code (But without creating it themselves), in which case I would say you are being extremely misleading. Why would they have legal standing if they are not the copyright owner? Certainly you can't do it against the will of the copyright owner, as the copyright owner is allowed to give new licenses to anyone they want under whatever terms they want. Edit: i stand corrected.

garaetjjte 4y ago
This is described by post itself: >The lawsuit we filed last year against Vizio takes an approach more appropriate for widely marketed and available consumer devices. Namely, the claim in Vizio is a contract claim for third-party beneficiary rights under the GPL, which will allow us (and all other customers who bought Vizio TV's) to receive the repair and modification instructions to the software more directly. I don't think this is against the spirit of GPL, after all the focus of it is user freedom (though arguably GPLv2 ended up weaker than expected by FSF (TiVo hole), and then FSF strongly pushed to switch to GPLv3 while ignoring that some developers deliberately preferred v2 terms).
- onphonenow 4y ago
  You are adopting the SFC's flawed analysis here. The rights to the code belong to the AUTHOR of the code. Random users have no rights. The GPL is a grant to someone to use code without payment. Failure to follow the GPL means the AUTHORS rights are restored and license to use freely revoked. Again, users have no claim in this situation. This SFC interpretation of third party rights is ridiculous. I hope some of the bigger hitters in this space come out with some statements on this.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.

HWR_14 4y ago

> If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases That never made sense to me. AFAIK, in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages. If all the SF Conservancy wants is the ability to sue violators, why aren't they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project. Then, they can have standing to sue. Of course, it doesn't give them standing to license everyone else's code, but if they want to sue it works.

im3w1l 4y ago
GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely. no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    Maybe I misunderstand the legal situation here, but if "they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project", then they would only have standing to sue regarding those specific lines right? Unless they can get other contributors on board.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Standard IANAL, but I have to deal with copyright issues sometimes. Yes, they would only have standing to sue based on those lines and any lines based on them as a derivative work. I'd imagine that if they showed they were good custodians of suing people (making it easy to get back in compliance as opposed to trying to milk people of money) they could get people to join them on a case-by-case basis. Even without that, they don't have to prove the value of the code that was used. You can sue for copyright infringement based on a standard damage instead, which is assumed to be 10k-250k per violation.

not2b 4y ago

I assume that you're talking about this: https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-vizio-in-lawsuit-alleging-gpl-violations https://wptavern.com/software-freedom-conservancy-takes-on-v... The GPL (version 2 or 3) says that if someone distributes a binary of a GPL-covered program, the person who receives the binary is entitled to receive source code. So the Conservancy brought an action on behalf of users: look, the text says you owe us source code. Please provide it. Apparently you think that this is a "scary new approach". But the GPL was written to protect users.

onphonenow 4y ago
Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users. Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter. I've no doubt they will drag this issue out in circles forever. But you pretty much know that if they aren't willing to litigate a copyright license in the normal venue - they've got a problem :) This is what is so worrisome. Now we hear from the SFC that a GPL violation is NOT a copyright violation? This is a ridiculous and yes, extreme interpretation of what most developers would have understood. Let's check back in on this in the future and see if they can even keep this in state court to try and avoid copyright law.
- pabs3 4y ago
  SFC didn't say that a GPL violation isn't a copyright violation, obviously it is. The Vizio lawsuit is simply an attempt at an alternative approach to achieving GPL compliance. There are a lot more ways to do that than just suing over copyright; for example you can get customs to seize the non-compliant devices as they enter the country, which Matthew Garret did to some Android tablets many years ago. The Vizio lawsuit is their first attempt at expanding the variety of compliance actions they can take. The Vizio lawsuit is kind of brilliant, since if they win it means that anyone can sue for GPL compliance, not just the copyright holder, which should make compliance much more common.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Heads up - the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract with users. A “license” (copyright or otherwise) is either a gratuitous license or a contract, and, while there are some important legal differences, gratuitous licenses are generally enforced under contract principles. So, generally, contract law applies to licenses. Generally, the FSF and related groups have argued that the GPL is a contract license with mutual consideration, and I believe this has prevailed in some cases (it is possible for it to be true in some cases but not all, since contract depends on specific facts between the parties and not the written terms alone.) > Ironically, the SFC I think tried to file their case in state court. Copyright law is a federal matter. One principle of contract law is that the existence of a contract limits parties to action for breach if the terms are violated by the other party, not whatever action they would have on the underlying rights without the contract.

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago

> Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable. It is an important principle of the legal system that parties subject to an externality must be powerless to do anything.

webmaven 4y ago

> Quick note that the SF Conservancy has been advancing a scary new approach to liability with GPL. > Historically, the rights and responsibilities related to GPL comes from the copyright holder. If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases and things were reasonable. If you write some code and release it under the GPL, and some company makes a device that includes a modified version of the software, and I buy the device but the company refuses to provide source for their modifications, why should my rights under the GPL depend on you as a developer (and copyright holder) suing the company? The GPL grants the user of the software specific rights and imposes equivalent obligations on whoever the user received the software from. Whether the original developer is busy, uninterested, incapacitated, or even dead should have no impact on my rights as a user. It may be true that a user is not (and perhaps even should not be) able to terminate the company's license to use, modify, and redistribute GPL software (I think that's debatable, since the GPL doesn't condition termination on the copyright owner taking action, but IANAL), but a user receiving the software should damn well be able to insist on receiving the modified source code, and in the face of a refusal to comply, a user should be able to sue. In fact, a class action suit on behalf of all affected users should be possible.