3 ms·

Genuine question: what happens if they refuse to release? How is it enforced? If the answer is going to court, who sues them? EFF?

IceWreck 4y ago
Afaik anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel can sue them.
Sesse__ 4y ago
The short answer: It's complicated. But to give answers at face value: 1. Unfortunately, in most cases, nothing. GPL violations are rampant, and usually without serious consequence for the infringer. 2. Like any other copyright violation, through the courts. But there is a history of successful GPL enforcement by the mere threat of going to court (since what you're usually after is compliance, not damages). 3. Depends heavily on the jurisdiction, but in most of them, it certainly helps to have a copyright holder involved (I would go as far as to say it's a necessity). But you also need money, so most likely, something like the EFF or SFLC.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
warp 4y ago
I think the Software Freedom Conservancy is probably the most active in trying to enforce GPL compliance on free software in general, and for the Linux kernel in particular. Some kernel developers have assigned their copyrights directly to the SFC, and some have signed agreements for SFC to do this enforcement on their behalf. (see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ ) Obviously there are many people and organizations who own copyright to parts of the linux kernel, and any of those can attempt to enforce the GPL on the kernel in court.
- pabs3 4y ago
  If Conservancy win their lawsuit against Vizio, then a precedent will be set that anyone who receives binaries based on GPL code will be able to sue for compliance, based on the third party beneficiary doctrine within contract law. This potentially depends on if the jurisdiction allows for specific performance as a remedy for contract violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Actually, the Linux kernel devs and SFC really don't see eye to eye on this. I'd say Harald Welte did a ton for GPL enforcement - really very impressive. He asked for but did not demand release of stuff he didn't have copyright for as well which normally worked. Also does a vendor FAQ - https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ to help folks get it right.
mdasen 4y ago
Anyone who has copyrighted code in the kernel they're using can sue or a copyright holder can work with an organization like the EFF or Software Freedom Conservancy to sue them. One of the big things with the Linux kernel is that it's GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't offer an opportunity to come back into compliance. Any violation leads to an automatic termination to all rights. Most of the big kernel developers have said that they won't enforce GPLv2 "death penalty", but there's a lot of Linux developers out there and Linux doesn't have authors assign copyright so there's a huge number of copyright holders. > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. There are lots of articles on this like http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost..., https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why... Realistically, most of these things get settled or ignored and the world moves on with a bare minimum of enforcement.

IceWreck 4y ago

Afaik anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel can sue them.

Sesse__ 4y ago

The short answer: It's complicated. But to give answers at face value: 1. Unfortunately, in most cases, nothing. GPL violations are rampant, and usually without serious consequence for the infringer. 2. Like any other copyright violation, through the courts. But there is a history of successful GPL enforcement by the mere threat of going to court (since what you're usually after is compliance, not damages). 3. Depends heavily on the jurisdiction, but in most of them, it certainly helps to have a copyright holder involved (I would go as far as to say it's a necessity). But you also need money, so most likely, something like the EFF or SFLC.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

warp 4y ago

I think the Software Freedom Conservancy is probably the most active in trying to enforce GPL compliance on free software in general, and for the Linux kernel in particular. Some kernel developers have assigned their copyrights directly to the SFC, and some have signed agreements for SFC to do this enforcement on their behalf. (see https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ ) Obviously there are many people and organizations who own copyright to parts of the linux kernel, and any of those can attempt to enforce the GPL on the kernel in court.

pabs3 4y ago
If Conservancy win their lawsuit against Vizio, then a precedent will be set that anyone who receives binaries based on GPL code will be able to sue for compliance, based on the third party beneficiary doctrine within contract law. This potentially depends on if the jurisdiction allows for specific performance as a remedy for contract violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
onphonenow 4y ago
Actually, the Linux kernel devs and SFC really don't see eye to eye on this. I'd say Harald Welte did a ton for GPL enforcement - really very impressive. He asked for but did not demand release of stuff he didn't have copyright for as well which normally worked. Also does a vendor FAQ - https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ https://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq/ to help folks get it right.

mdasen 4y ago

Anyone who has copyrighted code in the kernel they're using can sue or a copyright holder can work with an organization like the EFF or Software Freedom Conservancy to sue them. One of the big things with the Linux kernel is that it's GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't offer an opportunity to come back into compliance. Any violation leads to an automatic termination to all rights. Most of the big kernel developers have said that they won't enforce GPLv2 "death penalty", but there's a lot of Linux developers out there and Linux doesn't have authors assign copyright so there's a huge number of copyright holders. > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. There are lots of articles on this like http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost..., https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf https://www.samba.org/samba/samba/ftp/slides/linuxcollab-why... Realistically, most of these things get settled or ignored and the world moves on with a bare minimum of enforcement.