[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Do we need embargoes for GPL compliance issues?

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:

The Linux Foundation organised another initiative, encouraging
copyright holders to agree that they would apply GPL v3's termination
terms to the kernel:
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


Ben Hutchings
Computers are not intelligent.	They only think they are.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: