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

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[ I'm not on debian-user regularly but I was dragged into the thread by a
  large cc list that Bruce started.  Removing individual email addresses of
  possible non-list members, other than Bruce. ]

Bruce, if you haven't looked at the Principles of of Community-Oriented
Enforcement <https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html>,
which were co-published by Conservancy and the FSF, and endorsed by a wide
range of other organizations, including FSF Europe and the OSI, you should
definitely do so.

The most relevant principle regarding your public post referenced in this
thread is: "Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and responsiveness."
You don't indicate in your blog post that you put in efforts to resolve this
matter confidentially and sought compliance in a collaborative and friendly
way first.  That's a mistake, in my opinion.

Conservancy often spends years of friendly negotiations, attempting to
resolve a GPL enforcement matter before making public statements about it.
We have found in our extensive experience of enforcing the GPL that early
public statements sometimes thwarts not just our enforcement efforts, but
the enforcement efforts of others.

Finally, I have an important general statement that those concerned about
violations should consider: With hundreds of known GPL violations going on
around the world every day, we should as a community be careful not to
over-prioritize any particular violation merely because the press becomes
interested.  Rather, the giant worldwide queue of known GPL violations
should be prioritized by figuring out which ones, if solved, will do the
most to maximize software freedom for all users.
Bradley M. Kuhn
Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter

Reply to: