Re: Do we need embargoes for GPL compliance issues?

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Florian Weimer writes ("Do we need embargoes for GPL compliance issues?"):
> Nothing can be done about GPLv2-only violations and the resulting
> license termination, of course.

This is a bit of a tangent, of course, but: I see this as a feature.

If corporations are upset by the possibility that their poor source
code management, untransparent processes, and lack of attention to the
needs of their downstreams, mean that they may be at risk of doom due
to the GPLv2 termination clause - why, then they should encourage
everyone to upgrade to GPLv3+.

I think it was entirely wrong of the Conservancy's Linux GPL
enforcement project to go along with the idea of promising to give
violators a GPLv3-style termination clause.

Instead, copyrightholders should dual licence their contributions to
the kernel and perhaps promise not to enforce GPLv2 breaches
(including GPLv2 termination) if the GPLv2-violator is willing to
behave in a way that would comply with GPLv3 within the GPLv3 30-day
period.

Ian.


-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.