On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 09:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > That said, the Linux kernel is of course under GPLv2, which doesn't have > that 30-day provision at all, so it doesn't seem like an embargo would > have helped at all in this specific case (which I think you mentioned in > your original message). [...] As you may know, an individual copyright holder in the Linux kernel is understood to have succesfully sued various infringing companies and claimed significant fees to reinstate their licences. In response to this, there have been efforts to set norms for copyright enforcement and to reduce the risk to distributors that may accidentally infringe. Software Freedom Conservancy and the FSF set out the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, which include applying GPL v3's termination terms to works formally licensed under v2: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html The Linux Foundation organised another initiative, encouraging copyright holders to agree that they would apply GPL v3's termination terms to the kernel: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.html However this is not currently a requirement for contributing to the kernel upstream. Contributions from the one litigious copyright holder are no longer accepted, and I would expect his code to be gradually replaced over time. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part