Re: Do we need embargoes for GPL compliance issues?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I may just be hopelessly naive or out of touch, but I feel like the
> termination of rights clauses under the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are widely ignored
> for good-faith violations (such as those Debian would make) and basically
> never enforced that way. Hell, they're barely ever enforced against
> blatant violations by large commercial companies like VMware.
Agreed re good-faith violations by FLOSS community projects. That said
there are also a lot of potential long-term violations in projects
surrounding the FLOSS community, for eg check the Debian derivatives
census for the phrase "no source packages".
The FSF and Conservancy do bring various organisations into
compliance, usually in much longer timeframes than specified by GPLv3.
Most of that work is done in private, IIRC the reasoning for that is
discussed in their compliance principles. Conservancy have
occasionally publicly released details of compliance their work, for
example Samsung and Tesla. Conservancy have also given conference
talks on the topic such as the keynote at FOSDEM last year.
https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/CensusFull
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-ccs/
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2017/feb/13/bkuhn-fosdem-keynote/
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: