Ralph Corderoy wrote: > It's because I feel the current methods of compliance enforcement are > failing:
"Failing" isn't the right word. Resolving GPL violations takes as much effort and time as it always, and it's very typical that from when we identify and open a violation, it's 18 months before we achieve compliance. I've never seen a method that in general gets compliance faster. If you know one, please tell me about it! Ralph Corderoy wrote: > they don't cope with the volume of violations; This I agree with. Volunteers to help are welcome. Email me off-list. > no enforcement ever seems to act as an incentive for others to comply, > instead it's better for > a bottom line if they don't bother to comply and just hope the SFC, etc., > don't come calling. > For a copyright holder to enforce takes a lot of time and maybe money. > Life's short. More resources would help. Please donate: http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/ Please volunteer. > It's the purchaser of the hardware that wants the source and is prepared to > put some effort to get it. Means of enabling them to do something seem > worth considering. I'm very much for this. I think it's on-topic to this list. But AFAIK we have no formula for how to do this -- other than in Australia, we can put people in touch with Brendan Scott. Telling a new violation reporter speculative stuff that might help someday but can't help them now isn't that useful. My main concern is context of the content, not the content itself. > Manufacturers care about mass sales and can ignore an annoying individual > that buzzes around them like a gnat. They would take notice of large > retailers. This part I just don't understand what you're saying. -- bkuhn
