3 ms·

In part because the "cottage industry" for photographers rights is based on getting people to pay, while most free software authors aren't actually interested i

by lambda 12y ago

In part because the "cottage industry" for photographers rights is based on getting people to pay, while most free software authors aren't actually interested in being paid for it, they are just interested in keeping it free. When the focus is on getting paid, a cottage industry can form that is based off the revenue from extracting royalties, but getting injunctions that apply until someone comes in compliance with a license is expensive due to lawyers fees and court costs, without any revenue to offset it.

drewcrawford 12y ago
But those are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary. It is not very effective to say "Um, stop being a violator pls." It is much more effective to say "Here is your invoice for being a violator, and don't let me catch you again."
click170 12y ago
Nailed it. Which makes me wonder, perhaps in next iterations the GPL should include provisions stating that intentional infringement (perhaps defined as failure to comply after 1 year from date of the complaint) results in financial penalties, thus allowing a cottage industry to form. It could be argued that this would have a chilling effect on the adoption rate of FOSS software in corporations, but I would argue we may have already reached a critical mass where it's more costly to develop your own solution and I would point out that this only applies to modifications that you make to the source code before distributing the result. Anyone can still download and use the software without worry.
- drewcrawford 12y ago
  Willfull infringement is already a tort; the damages are set by statute at $150,000 (if properly registered etc). You do not need to add any provision to the GPL to go after US violators. To the extent that doesn't happen means that copyright holders (developers) don't do it. Either because they don't know how, they didn't register in a timely fashion, they don't want to bother, or they don't want money.
- logn 12y ago
  The financial penalties are implied. You can prove damages or argue for punitive damages.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Not only is that unnecessary, as laid out in a sibling comment, it would likely be ineffective legally, as you can't simply invent penalties and apply them through a license like that.
- geofft 12y ago
  You don't need an explicit penalty: if you violate the license, it terminates. Here's the text of the relevant section of the GPLv3 (the GPLv2 only has an equivalent to the first paragraph): You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. So, on a second violation of the GPLv3, or on a first violation if it takes longer than 30 days, the rightsholder can already say "You need to pay me if you want your rights reinstated." Conservancy has been using a variant of this tactic: they get a friendly, clear rightsholder for something like Busybox (which has relatively few authors), inform a company that they're violating the GPL and revoking the Busybox license, and demand GPL compliance for all software, including stuff like Linux which has so many authors that getting a clear rightsholder involved is harder, before reinstating the Busybox license.
mietek 12y ago
I’m pretty sure most free software authors would be interested in being paid for it, if this wasn’t an unsolved problem. Here’s one attempt at a solution: https://snowdrift.coop https://snowdrift.coop
- quadrangle 12y ago
  FWIW, that's a proposed solution to getting free software funded (and, by extension, not funding proprietary stuff), but it isn't a solution directly related to stopping GPL violation.

by lambda 12y ago

drewcrawford 12y ago

But those are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary. It is not very effective to say "Um, stop being a violator pls." It is much more effective to say "Here is your invoice for being a violator, and don't let me catch you again."

click170 12y ago

Nailed it. Which makes me wonder, perhaps in next iterations the GPL should include provisions stating that intentional infringement (perhaps defined as failure to comply after 1 year from date of the complaint) results in financial penalties, thus allowing a cottage industry to form. It could be argued that this would have a chilling effect on the adoption rate of FOSS software in corporations, but I would argue we may have already reached a critical mass where it's more costly to develop your own solution and I would point out that this only applies to modifications that you make to the source code before distributing the result. Anyone can still download and use the software without worry.

drewcrawford 12y ago
Willfull infringement is already a tort; the damages are set by statute at $150,000 (if properly registered etc). You do not need to add any provision to the GPL to go after US violators. To the extent that doesn't happen means that copyright holders (developers) don't do it. Either because they don't know how, they didn't register in a timely fashion, they don't want to bother, or they don't want money.
logn 12y ago
The financial penalties are implied. You can prove damages or argue for punitive damages.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Not only is that unnecessary, as laid out in a sibling comment, it would likely be ineffective legally, as you can't simply invent penalties and apply them through a license like that.
geofft 12y ago
You don't need an explicit penalty: if you violate the license, it terminates. Here's the text of the relevant section of the GPLv3 (the GPLv2 only has an equivalent to the first paragraph): You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. So, on a second violation of the GPLv3, or on a first violation if it takes longer than 30 days, the rightsholder can already say "You need to pay me if you want your rights reinstated." Conservancy has been using a variant of this tactic: they get a friendly, clear rightsholder for something like Busybox (which has relatively few authors), inform a company that they're violating the GPL and revoking the Busybox license, and demand GPL compliance for all software, including stuff like Linux which has so many authors that getting a clear rightsholder involved is harder, before reinstating the Busybox license.

mietek 12y ago

I’m pretty sure most free software authors would be interested in being paid for it, if this wasn’t an unsolved problem. Here’s one attempt at a solution: https://snowdrift.coop https://snowdrift.coop

quadrangle 12y ago
FWIW, that's a proposed solution to getting free software funded (and, by extension, not funding proprietary stuff), but it isn't a solution directly related to stopping GPL violation.