Re: GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault(R-Link system))
Richard Fontana wrote a few days ago: > (As for whether the Installation Information requirements also exist in > some sense for GPLv2, I do understand the basis for that argument, but I've > always assumed it was and remains a minority view, rejected by the > author/steward of the license itself.) Be very careful what specific view you're implying when you say "is the minority view, rejected by the author/steward of the license [meaning FSF]". AFAIK, the only related item that RMS has said specifically isn't covered by GPLv2 is cryptographic lock-down -- i.e., a system that does not allow the user to install modified versions of GPLv2'd software due to cryptography. RMS has said such crypto-lock-down is permitted on GPLv2 but not by GPLv3. I, Alan Cox, Jeremy Allison, and others do hold the minority view that GPLv2 *does* require disclosure of a method to install modified versions even in this situation. However, I realize that RMS made a problem for that minority interpretation by saying what he's said. I was even deposed on this point in Conservancy & Andersen v. Best Buy, et al. The violators brought my whole blog into evidence just to ask me about about this blog post: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/07/15/motorola-admits.html ). Here's the relevant porition of the deposition transcript (Q is the violator's attorney, A is me): Q. Do you see that the second sentence is: "In fact, in my reading of GPL Version 2, in comparison to GPL Version 3, the only affected [sic] difference between the two on this point relates to cryptographic device lockdown. I do admit that under GPL Version 2, if you give all the required installation scripts, you could still use cryptography to prevent those scripts from functioning without an authorization key." Did I read those two sentences correctly? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with those two sentences? A. I believe that we're stuck in that interpretation of GPL V 2, much to my chagrin. I think it's kind of funny that some first year associates had to read my entire blog going back to the 1990s just to find that quote so their boss could ask me about it in deposition. :) Anyway, there is no indication of any other difference in what must be included with GPLv2's "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" and what GPLv3 requires in its (more long-winded) equivalent provision. The only difference in GPLv2-compliant build/install instructions and GPLv3-compliant build/install instructions would be "the GPLv2 ones don't tell you how to cryptographically sign the binary as part of the install process". Nothing FSF has ever said contradicts that interpretation, and AFAIK it's the interpretation that both FSF and Conservancy use in their GPL enforcement matters. I've said frequently on my talks in GPL enforcement: the people that try to say there's more to the difference between v2's and v3's requirements in this regard (beyond cryptographic key issue) are likely going to end up violating GPLv2. And I'll come knocking. -- bkuhn
Re: GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault(R-Link system))
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:44:28PM +, Smith, McCoy wrote: > So Richard does that put you in the camp that says the installation > information requirement also exists in GPLv2? > That's one area where I could see v2 & v3 having different enforcement > options. I understood Marc's issue to be about 'who can enforce'. I don't think the Installation Information provisions of v3 change the situation (but I admit I'm now poring over the text to see whether I've missed anything). (As for whether the Installation Information requirements also exist in some sense for GPLv2, I do understand the basis for that argument, but I've always assumed it was and remains a minority view, rejected by the author/steward of the license itself.) - Richard > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, "Richard Fontana" wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:18:48PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn: > > > >>> I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The > >>> goal > >>> of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the > >>> primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the > >>> most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the > >>> license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on > >>> their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on > >>> how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it > >>> and > >>> am the primary editor of: > >>> http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf > >> > >> I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. > >> But > >> maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again > >> too > >> lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? > > > > You mean does GPLv3 address the issue I believe you are raising, which > > is the presumed reservation of an enforcement remedy for a GPLv2 > > violation in the copyright holder? No, it doesn't. The interpretation > > of GPLv2 and GPLv3 should be in harmony in this respect. Thus if > > there's some theory under which one could argue that a downstream > > licensee has a legal remedy against a GPL-violating distributor, it > > should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. If there's some theory why > > this should *not* be possible, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and > > GPLv3. > > > > Also, don't misunderstand me -- this is not *inherent* to the GPL as > > some sort of abstract thing. I can envision various ways in which a > > hypothetical GNU GPLv4 could be drafted to make weak or strong > > attempts to ensure that downstream users have legal remedies to > > enforce the source code requirements of the GPL. These might come at a > > cost which might be seen as undesirable. But that's for the FSF of the > > future to decide. > > > > > > - Richard > > > >
Re: GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault(R-Link system))
So Richard does that put you in the camp that says the installation information requirement also exists in GPLv2? That's one area where I could see v2 & v3 having different enforcement options. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, "Richard Fontana" wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:18:48PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: >> Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn: > >>> I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The goal >>> of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the >>> primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the >>> most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the >>> license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on >>> their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on >>> how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it and >>> am the primary editor of: >>> http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf >> >> I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. But >> maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again too >> lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? > > You mean does GPLv3 address the issue I believe you are raising, which > is the presumed reservation of an enforcement remedy for a GPLv2 > violation in the copyright holder? No, it doesn't. The interpretation > of GPLv2 and GPLv3 should be in harmony in this respect. Thus if > there's some theory under which one could argue that a downstream > licensee has a legal remedy against a GPL-violating distributor, it > should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. If there's some theory why > this should *not* be possible, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and > GPLv3. > > Also, don't misunderstand me -- this is not *inherent* to the GPL as > some sort of abstract thing. I can envision various ways in which a > hypothetical GNU GPLv4 could be drafted to make weak or strong > attempts to ensure that downstream users have legal remedies to > enforce the source code requirements of the GPL. These might come at a > cost which might be seen as undesirable. But that's for the FSF of the > future to decide. > > > - Richard > >
Re: GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault(R-Link system))
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:18:48PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn: > > I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The goal > > of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the > > primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the > > most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the > > license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on > > their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on > > how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it and > > am the primary editor of: > > http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf > > I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. But > maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again too > lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? You mean does GPLv3 address the issue I believe you are raising, which is the presumed reservation of an enforcement remedy for a GPLv2 violation in the copyright holder? No, it doesn't. The interpretation of GPLv2 and GPLv3 should be in harmony in this respect. Thus if there's some theory under which one could argue that a downstream licensee has a legal remedy against a GPL-violating distributor, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. If there's some theory why this should *not* be possible, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. Also, don't misunderstand me -- this is not *inherent* to the GPL as some sort of abstract thing. I can envision various ways in which a hypothetical GNU GPLv4 could be drafted to make weak or strong attempts to ensure that downstream users have legal remedies to enforce the source code requirements of the GPL. These might come at a cost which might be seen as undesirable. But that's for the FSF of the future to decide. - Richard
Re: GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault(R-Link system))
Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn: > Marc Dietrich wrote: > > Thanks for your help. I replied to your private mail which asked for > > evidence on the GPL violation. I think it would be better to discuss these > > things openly on this list so others may profit from the documentation of > > the process in the future. > > I don't have a serious objection to discussing the evidence of the violation > publicly, but I hope you understand that since any given GPL violation > could turn into a possible later litigation, I usually try to avoid talking > about the details of what evidence exists for a specific enforcement matter > on any public lists. ok, that's understandable. I was more refering to the process in general, not the details of the evidence. > > What's still looks strange to me is that the GPL gives all the rights to > > endusers, but they are now allowed to file a suit? > > I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The goal > of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the > primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the > most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the > license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on > their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on > how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it and > am the primary editor of: > http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. But maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again too lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? Marc
GPL enforcement in practice (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
Marc Dietrich wrote: > Thanks for your help. I replied to your private mail which asked for > evidence on the GPL violation. I think it would be better to discuss these > things openly on this list so others may profit from the documentation of > the process in the future. I don't have a serious objection to discussing the evidence of the violation publicly, but I hope you understand that since any given GPL violation could turn into a possible later litigation, I usually try to avoid talking about the details of what evidence exists for a specific enforcement matter on any public lists. > What's still looks strange to me is that the GPL gives all the rights to > endusers, but they are now allowed to file a suit? I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The goal of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it and am the primary editor of: http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf the source of which is here: https://www.gitorious.org/gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial (I guess this my official announcement to this list of that book project. I welcome merge requests. The work is CC-By-SA.) > Instead they have to find an involved developer willing to do it for them? I've dedicated most of my life to making sure that there are good coalitions of such copyright holders to take action in these cases. I look forward to collaborating with you and we always welcome volunteer help. > If this is true, it heavily weakens the GPL. While the system isn't perfect, the Free Software infrastructure work with the legal systems we have: that was the "hack" that RMS discovered to make copyleft work at all. I have nevertheless been very supportive of novel ways to build Free Software licensing structure, but I have yet to hear one that is known to work as well as this one -- even for its flaws. We have the worst system, AFAICT, except for all the other possible ones. I'm also very supportive of pro-bono lawyers (like Brendan Scott in Australia) who have successfully used other legal systems (such as fraud law, in that case) to force action by a GPL violator without copyright holders involved. -- bkuhn
