3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoIf 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 agoActually, 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.