* mray <[email protected]> [2020-10-30 13:07]: > On 30.10.20 10:14, al3xu5 / dotcommon wrote: > > Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:26:17 -0700 - Aaron Wolf <[email protected]>: > > > >> [...] The FSF is not opposed > >> to legal enforcement of trademarks and copyrights (copylefts in this > >> case). > > > > Sorry but I am very amazed to hear this statement. > > > > I believed that the ethical spirit that originated GNU and GPL (copyleft), > > and that is the basis of the FSF, was exactly that of opposing trademarks, > > copyrights and patents. > > > > […] > > I think it was just pointed out that technically copyleft *applies* > copyright, and in case of a GPL violation gets enforced sometimes. Afaik > compliance is almost always the desirable outcome, but in certain cases > I doubt the FSF would shy away, exactly because of its principles.
GPL legal enforcement is almost non-existent. There are more cases outside of the US then in US, if any. FSF position is here: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles Quote: Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance. Copyleft's overarching policy goal is to make respect of users' freedoms the norm. The FSF designed the GNU GPL's text towards this end. Copyleft enforcement done in this spirit focuses on stopping incorrect distribution, encouraging corrected distribution, and addressing damage done to the community and users by the past violation. Addressing past damage often includes steps to notify those who have already received the software how they can also obtain its source code, and to explain the scope of their related rights. No other ancillary goals should supersede full compliance with the GPL and respect for users' freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute the software. Legal action is a last resort. Compliance actions are primarily education and assistance processes to aid those who are not following the license. Most GPL violations occur by mistake, without ill will. Copyleft enforcement should assist these distributors to become helpful participants in the free software projects on which they rely. Occasionally, violations are intentional or the result of severe negligence, and there is no duty to be empathetic in those cases. Even then, a lawsuit is a last resort; mutually agreed terms that fix (or at least cease) further distribution and address damage already done are much better than a battle in court. /// end of quote /// Please let us not mistake the GNU and FSF position on GPL enforcements with other companies, such as Google: https://opensource.google/gpl-enforcement/ I think that statement by Google sounds threatening. But it is not statement by FSF. Private website and opinion on GPL enforcement: https://gplenforced.org/ Statement by third party organization: https://sourcecodecontrol.co/gpl/ Statement by Eben Moglen, GNU website, from 2001: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html Quote: "In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults." From Software Freedom: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Private website for GPL denouncing: https://www.gpl-violations.org/ Software Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html Their new strategy: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/oct/01/new-copyleft-strategy-launched-with-ARDC-grant/ PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT FSF'S STATEMENT: Quote: Our new initiative features: - Litigation to enforce against license violators that do not voluntarily comply in a timely manner - Coordinating the development of alternative firmware for devices where none currently exists - Collaborating with other organizations to promote copyleft compliance as a feature for consumers to protect their privacy and get more out of their devices We can observe that there are various groups that act by different set of principles in contrast to what is established by FSF. So far I know, FSF has not changed its positions. Jean _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
