LaForge's home page (Posts about gpl)

On the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement

Harald Welte — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:00:00 GMT

I'm late with covering this here, but work overload is having its toll on my ability to blog.

On October 16th, key Linux Kernel developers have released and anounced the Linux Kernel Community Enforcement Statemnt.

In its actual text, those key kernel developers cover

compliance with the reciprocal sharing obligations of GPLv2 is critical and mandatory
acknowledgement to the right to enforce
expression of interest to ensure that enforcement actions are conducted in a manner beneficial to the larger community
a method to provide reinstatement of rights after ceasing a license violation (see below)
that legal action is a last resort
that after resolving any non-compliance, the formerly incompliant user is welcome to the community

I wholeheartedly agree with those. This should be no surprise as I've been one of the initiators and signatories of the earlier statement of the netfilter project on GPL enforcement.

On the reinstatement of rights

The enforcement statement then specifically expresses the view of the signatories on the specific aspect of the license termination. Particularly in the US, among legal scholars there is a strong opinion that if the rights under the GPLv2 are terminated due to non-compliance, the infringing entity needs an explicit reinstatement of rights from the copyright holder. The enforcement statement now basically states that the signatories believe the rights should automatically be re-instated if the license violation ceases within 30 days of being notified of the license violation

To people like me living in the European (and particularly German) legal framework, this has very little to no implications. It has been the major legal position that any user, even an infringing user can automatically obtain a new license as soon as he no longer violates. He just (really or imaginary) obtains a new copy of the source code, at which time he again gets a new license from the copyright holders, as long as he fulfills the license conditions.

So my personal opinion as a non-legal person active in GPL compliance on the reinstatement statement is that it changes little to nothing regarding the jurisdiction that I operate in. It merely expresses that other developers express their intent and interest to a similar approach in other jurisdictions.

SFLC sues SFC over trademark infringement

Harald Welte — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:00:00 GMT

As the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has publicly disclosed on their website, it appears that Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed for a trademark infringement lawsuit against SFC.

SFLC has launched SFC in 2006, and SFLC has helped and endorsed SFC in the past.

This lawsuit is hard to believe. What has this community come to, if its various members - who used all to be respected equally - start filing law suits against each other?

It's of course not known what kind of negotiations might have happened out-of-court before an actual lawsuit has been filed. Nevertheless, one would have hoped that people are able to talk to each other, and that the mutual respect for working at different aspects and with possibly slightly different strategies would have resulted in a less confrontational approach to resolving any dispute.

To me, this story just looks like there can only be losers on all sides, by far not just limited to the two entities in question.

On lwn.net some people, including high-ranking members of the FOSS community have started to spread conspiracy theories as to whether there's any secret scheming behind the scenes, particularly from the Linux Foundation towards SFLC to cause trouble towards the SFC and their possibly-not-overly-enjoyed-by-everyone enforcement activities.

I think this is complete rubbish. Neither have I ever had the impression that the LF is completely opposed to license enforcement to begin with, nor do I have remotely enough phantasy to see them engage in such malicious scheming.

What motivates SFLC and/or Eben to attack their former offspring is however unexplainable to the bystander. One hopes there is no connection to his departure from FSF about one year ago, where he served as general counsel for more than two decades.

Book on Practical GPL Compliance

Harald Welte — Mon, 01 May 2017 16:00:00 GMT

My former gpl-violations.org colleague Armijn Hemel and Shane Coughlan (former coordinator of the FSFE Legal Network) have written a book on practical GPL compliance issues.

I've read through it (in the bath tub of course, what better place to read technical literature), and I can agree wholeheartedly with its contents. For those who have been involved in GPL compliance engineering there shouldn't be much new - but for the vast majority of developers out there who have had little exposure to the bread-and-butter work of providing complete an corresponding source code, it makes an excellent introductory text.

The book focuses on compliance with GPLv2, which is probably not too surprising given that it's published by the Linux foundation, and Linux being GPLv2.

You can download an electronic copy of the book from https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/research/practical-gpl-compliance

Given the subject matter is Free Software, and the book is written by long-time community members, I cannot help to notice a bit of a surprise about the fact that the book is released in classic copyright under All rights reserved with no freedom to the user.

Considering the sensitive legal topics touched, I can understand the possible motivation by the authors to not permit derivative works. But then, there still are licenses such as CC-BY-ND which prevent derivative works but still permit users to make and distribute copies of the work itself. I've made that recommendation / request to Shane, let's see if they can arrange for some more freedom for their readers.

VMware becomes gold member of Linux Foundation: And what about the GPL?

Harald Welte — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:00:00 GMT

As we can read in recent news, VMware has become a gold member of the Linux foundation. That causes - to say the least - very mixed feelings to me.

One thing to keep in mind: The Linux Foundation is an industry association, it exists to act in the joint interest of it's paying members. It is not a charity, and it does not act for the public good. I know and respect that, while some people sometimes appear to be confused about its function.

However, allowing an entity like VMware to join, despite their many years long disrespect for the most basic principles of the FOSS Community (such as: Following the GPL and its copyleft principle), really is hard to understand and accept.

I wouldn't have any issue if VMware would (prior to joining LF) have said: Ok, we had some bad policies in the past, but now we fully comply with the license of the Linux kernel, and we release all derivative/collective works in source code. This would be a positive spin: Acknowledge past issues, resolve the issues, become clean and then publicly underlining your support of Linux by (among other things) joining the Linux Foundation. I'm not one to hold grudges against people who accept their past mistakes, fix the presence and then move on. But no, they haven't fixed any issues.

They are having one of the worst track records in terms of intentional GPL compliance issues for many years, showing outright disrespect for Linux, the GPL and ultimately the rights of the Linux developers, not resolving those issues and at the same time joining the Linux Foundation? What kind of message sends that?

It sends the following messages:

you can abuse Linux, the GPL and copyleft while still being accepted amidst the Linux Foundation Members
it means the Linux Foundations has no ethical concerns whatsoever about accepting such entities without previously asking them to become clean
it also means that VMware has still not understood that Linux and FOSS is about your actions, particularly the kind of choices you make how to technically work with the community, and not against it.

So all in all, I think this move has seriously damaged the image of both entities involved. I wouldn't have expected different of VMware, but I would have hoped the Linux Foundation had some form of standards as to which entities they permit amongst their ranks. I guess I was being overly naive :(

It's a slap in the face of every developer who writes code not because he gets paid, but because it is rewarding to know that copyleft will continue to ensure the freedom of related code.

UPDATE (March 8, 2017):: I was mistaken in my original post in that VMware didn't just join, but was a Linux Foundation member already before, it is "just" their upgrade from silver to gold that made the news recently. I stand corrected. Still doesn't make it any better that the are involved inside LF while engaging in stepping over the lines of license compliance.
UPDATE2 (March 8, 2017):: As some people pointed out, there is no verdict against VMware. Yes, that's true. But the mere fact that they rather distribute derivative works of GPL licensed software and take this to court with an armada of lawyers (instead of simply complying with the license like everyone else) is sad enough. By the time there will be a final verdict, the product is EOL. That's probably their strategy to begin with :/