Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
I wrote a little while ago: > it's not me excursively doing it. Sorry for the bad "spelling auto correct accept" there. s/excursively/exclusively/. I'm not sure how I could excursively enforce the GPL. My prior email was, of course, on the whole, excursive. Maybe that's why the word choice seemed ok when aspell suggested it from a typo. :) > right or privileged again, typo, no 'd' there. -- bkuhn
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
[ This email is ridiculously long. Much of it is just anecdotal info about my meta-experiences in the software industry over the years as they relate to GPL enforcement. I doubt you'll want to read it unless you're really interested in the complicated politics of community GPL enforcement, given from a non-profit advocate's perspective. And, much of this stuff below are things I've already said in my various public talks on the subject. ] >> Robinson Tryon wrote on Thursday, 17 April: >>> in the general case, I hope that employers would not be able to >>> quash an employee's personal, non-work-time hobby of GPL >>> enforcement. > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> I wish that were true as well, but it's merely a wish, sadly. Robinson Tryon wrote at 16:51 (EDT) on Thursday: > I don't recall hearing the head of BigWig Technologies, Inc. stand up > and call you or Conservancy out on being akin to a patent troll. Oh, no, executives at BigWig are *much* more politically savvy than that. They send proxies to fight GPL enforcement: if you see people who have 'street cred' in the Free Software community criticizing my enforcement efforts (as happens in the media from time to time, like back in early 2012), you should "follow the money" and see where it leads you. (I really wish we had true investigative journalists in the tech industry who would dig this stuff out independently.) > If all of this is happening quietly in back alleys, then perhaps > someone should help you shine some light back there, so we can let the > rats scurry back to the subway tunnels and let you do your thing. Indeed, they use plenty of private intimidation tactics, of both the carrot and the stick variety. Below are a few anecdotes. Of course, since it is "back alley", as you point out, you have to take my word that these things below happened. I'm sure that the people involved would deny it and/or avoid the question if asked, which is the main reason I don't name names. For example, an executive at a well-known corporation that contributes to Linux and other Free Software projects once tried to convince me that his company would give huge amounts of money to Conservancy if Conservancy stopped stop doing GPL enforcement entirely. Other mid-level managers followed up later with the same message. Later, a different executive from a different company, which has invested millions in Linux and Linux-related products, told me privately that his company would "just stop its work in Linux, Samba and BusyBox if you don't stop this GPL enforcement" (which would've been comical if he hadn't seemed dead serious -- it seemed he really thought I was naïve enough to believe that might be true). I told him that I found that impossible to believe, and that he flattered the few GPL enforcers in the world if he was saying our behavior alone could change his company's major business plans. That executive ended the conversation by telling me that if we were "doing any GPL enforcement against [his] competitors, get in touch, because [he] could help". (There is some hypocrisy in these positions, as you can see.) This executive also said during the same conversation that that his "lawyers have researched the question and found that you cannot ever enforce the GPL without 100% of the copyright". Of course, we'd already gotten multiple judicial decisions in BusyBox cases that show he's just wrong about that. :) He was just trying to see if he could scare me. I've also been blackballed from attending some conferences and participating in some industry groups occasionally, where the only legitimate reason that can be found upon investigation is that some of the event/group sponsors are against GPL enforcement. (The publicly stated reasons are usually Kafkaesque, that can clearly be shown as a double-standard when comparing me to other invited participants.) There have also been plenty of attacks on my character, both public and private. Political opponents of GPL enforcement make a lot of hay of the fact that I'm not a tactful politician and I have no qualms about frankly speaking truth to power. I'm admittedly kinda the Michael Moore of Free Software. But, political opponents use this as a way to discredit me and conflate me personally with the broader work of non-profit GPL enforcement -- since I'm the most known for it -- yet it's not me excursively doing it. Finally, at previous employers, I've actually been told by my managers that they were under serious pressure from their funders to stop my GPL enforcement work. I have fewer details on this part because I was only told that second-hand and thus my repeating it is double-hearsay, but it was clear to me that the managers in the situation believed it to be true and they made substantial policy changes based on the information. Now, I want to be abundantly clear on something I said before: this is *not* a conspiracy. All the actors involved have
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Robinson Tryon wrote on Thursday, 17 April: >> in the general case, I hope that employers would not be able to quash >> an employee's personal, non-work-time hobby of GPL enforcement. > > I wish that were true as well, but it's merely a wish, sadly. Is it legal for the employer to interfere in that way? (not to suggest that the interactions between employe(-es and -rs) always follows the law) > So, instead, I take the political heat and attacks from the industry > bigwigs who claim I'm the same as a patent troll because I don't release > the names of all the copyright holders. That's good politics on their > part: scare people so they don't want their names known, and then attack > the person who helps those scared people stand up for their rights. Maybe I'm just out of the loop here, but I don't recall hearing the head of BigWig Technologies, Inc. stand up and call you or Conservancy out on being akin to a patent troll. If I did hear such a thing, I feel like I'd be inclined to respond, and perhaps not recommend said company's hardware/services in the future to those I advise on tech matters. If all of this is happening quietly in back alleys, then perhaps someone should help you shine some light back there, so we can let the rats scurry back to the subway tunnels and let you do your thing. > This is the industry we all work in. I wish others would realize how > politically dangerous it is to enforce the GPL. I've basically made it > so my only job prospects forever are in non-profit organizations or > outside of computing entirely. It's what I wanted anyway, so it's not > that bad for me, but I'm pretty clearly blacklisted from every working > at any Linux-related company because of my GPL enforcement work. I've had many people express concern over my potential for future employment were I to take a position at an organization such as the FSF or work publicly with someone on GPL-enforcement work. Even some of the talks I've given might be poison to me gaining employment at one of the larger tech companies in the US today -- that is, if HR at the larger tech companies even had the content on their radar. At some level, I think you envision these companies with more substance and internal consistency than the flat, 2-D behemoths they have become; set up as for-profit companies, your current activities as a GPL-wielding, copyleft enforcer are of lesser importance to them than your ability to perform a role they need to fill so that they, in turn, can fill their coffers. If they believe that you can perform your duties and keep your mouth shut about the (totally legal) stuff you've done in the past, then I assume they'd probably hire you. You just strike me as more of an individual, and less of a cog-in-the-machine :-) > Actually, I think most of the major Linux companies prefer to pretend > Linux is LGPL'd. They're fine with upstreaming core subsystem stuff, > but they believe anything that isn't a core subsystem should be > proprietary if they want it to be. Any idea why the general consensus is to draw the line there? Just convenient to their business model, ala open-core? > It's that, but not only that. It's also that these companies believe if > the GPL is ever known to exist, it will "hurt adoption of Linux". > That's why industry trade associations and the like also oppose GPL > enforcement: adoption is more important than software freedom. Yes, I've heard bits-and-pieces of that... >> Do the companies not understand the GPL, or are they willfully >> violating it because they don't think anyone will bother to enforce >> it? > > Some companies against enforcement actually are generally pretty > compliant. They just have this irrational fear that they'll lose > customers if the GPL is enforced. If that were true, of course, they'd > have lost customers already since Harald and I have been enforcing the > GPL for decades now. Given that you're actively working on compliance, are these companies just hoping that you'll be too busy to get to them, or what? Re: losing customers, GPL compliance seems pretty simple to me, but I can see how it's a scary place for newcomers. Perhaps if we can provide more information about how to get into compliance and stay in compliance (including some kind of stupidly-simple guide for companies to pass-on to their downstream distributors), we might calm their irrational fears. > Others companies are known violators who play at the edges of the > fundamental "what makes something a combined and/or derivative work"? > They know they are right on the line, and they are working hard to make > it difficult for me to challenge them on this. And, it's quite > expensive for an individual or a non-profit to challenge a wealthy > company that's hell-bent on infringing your copyrights. That issue is > currently the fundamental center of my GPL enforcement work now. IIRC you were going after the
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
I wrote: > > I think most people on this list would be surprised to learn and will > > probably doubt me when I say there is a not-really-coordinated, but > > nearly universal, effort by many "Linux"-related companies, working very > > hard to squelch anyone who attempts to enforce the GPL, and doubly so > > against anyone who coordinates many people together to enforce GPL (like > > I do). Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > I'm not surprised. One UK manufacturer I chased obtained Linux from a > well-known supplier of embedded Linux. When I pointed out to the, > genuinely surprised, manufacturer their obligations they went upstream ... > Finally, the manufacturer shipped the wrong source on an expensive CD. > Then altered the bootloader on newer shipped units to Tivoise it. ... > The embedded Linux supplier did a poor job IMO; I agree and see directly stories like you described happen all the time; but, it wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about *clueful* companies, many of whom happily comply themselves, who also work hard to squelch activity of GPL enforcement because they want it to go away. -- bkuhn
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
Robinson Tryon wrote on Thursday, 17 April: > in the general case, I hope that employers would not be able to quash > an employee's personal, non-work-time hobby of GPL enforcement. I wish that were true as well, but it's merely a wish, sadly. > Is there anything specific that could be done to reduce the > possibility of reprisal from an employer? It's relatively simple: we need more Linux developers to publicly say they want to see the GPL enforced, and to even do some enforcement. > I assume that in the process of bringing suit against a company, the > names of all copyright holders would be made public, so masking > identity to avoid harassment wouldn't work. Indeed. Of course, we can keep names confidential until such time as a suit needs to be filed -- and most of the more than a dozen copyright holders who are involved in the GPL Compliance program for Linux developers are anonymous. So, instead, I take the political heat and attacks from the industry bigwigs who claim I'm the same as a patent troll because I don't release the names of all the copyright holders. That's good politics on their part: scare people so they don't want their names known, and then attack the person who helps those scared people stand up for their rights. This is the industry we all work in. I wish others would realize how politically dangerous it is to enforce the GPL. I've basically made it so my only job prospects forever are in non-profit organizations or outside of computing entirely. It's what I wanted anyway, so it's not that bad for me, but I'm pretty clearly blacklisted from every working at any Linux-related company because of my GPL enforcement work. > I can certainly imagine that many such "Linux"-related companies would > be annoyed with the work you do regarding GPL enforcement, as they'd > much rather pretend that the kernel Linux and other pieces of software > may be used willy-nilly. Actually, I think most of the major Linux companies prefer to pretend Linux is LGPL'd. They're fine with upstreaming core subsystem stuff, but they believe anything that isn't a core subsystem should be proprietary if they want it to be. > They see you and your colleagues as an impediment to their desire to > ship a proprietary product, and the GPL as a mechanism that might > allow others to reuse their work. It's that, but not only that. It's also that these companies believe if the GPL is ever known to exist, it will "hurt adoption of Linux". That's why industry trade associations and the like also oppose GPL enforcement: adoption is more important than software freedom. Ironically, that's the classic non-copyleft/copyleft tradeoff we've talked about in the Free Software community since the early 1990s. And, many Linux developers including Linus himself have said they don't think Linux would have succeeded if it weren't copylefted. But, good politicians rewrite history to suit them. Now that Linux is successful and GPL violations on it are rampant, those industry folks want to pretend that copyleft doesn't matter (or, at least, strong copyleft doesn't). > I am a bit surprised to hear that companies are working so hard to > squelch your work. I figured people on this list would be surprised by this; that's one reason why I decided to share this on the list. > Do the companies not understand the GPL, or are they willfully > violating it because they don't think anyone will bother to enforce > it? Some companies against enforcement actually are generally pretty compliant. They just have this irrational fear that they'll lose customers if the GPL is enforced. If that were true, of course, they'd have lost customers already since Harald and I have been enforcing the GPL for decades now. Others companies are known violators who play at the edges of the fundamental "what makes something a combined and/or derivative work"? They know they are right on the line, and they are working hard to make it difficult for me to challenge them on this. And, it's quite expensive for an individual or a non-profit to challenge a wealthy company that's hell-bent on infringing your copyrights. That issue is currently the fundamental center of my GPL enforcement work now. > To what extent would further education at the developer/engineer level > help? Telling Linux developers that we need their support -- in a friendly, non-confrontational way -- is what's needed most. Angry posts like some on this list make to LKML or other places aren't helping. What helps is to tell Linux developers that even if they only have a few hundred lines of code upstream, they should get in touch with me at the GPL Compliance program for Linux developers. Second, and probably more importantly: encourage Linux developers you know to insist that their employers let them keep their own copyright. There are a fewer and fewer Linux developers who actually have their own copyrights. This is by design of these companies: they know that without
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement
Hi Bradley, > I think most people on this list would be surprised to learn and will > probably doubt me when I say there is a not-really-coordinated, but > nearly universal, effort by many "Linux"-related companies, working > very hard to squelch anyone who attempts to enforce the GPL, and > doubly so against anyone who coordinates many people together to > enforce GPL (like I do). I'm not surprised. One UK manufacturer I chased obtained Linux from a well-known supplier of embedded Linux. When I pointed out to the, genuinely surprised, manufacturer their obligations they went upstream and I had a very long phone call with the source of their Linux who tried to persuade me that the vanilla public upstream release was sufficient and the manufacturer need not supply their tailored one, despite all the new device-support work they'd done. Finally, the manufacturer shipped the wrong source on an expensive CD. Then altered the bootloader on newer shipped units to Tivoise it. The embedded Linux supplier did a poor job IMO; Linux wasn't suitable for the manufacturer's unusual case where the hardware was sold well below cost because of expectations of per-unit post-sales revenue that could easily be avoided with new firmware. Cheers, Ralph.
Re: the backchannel politics of GPL enforcement (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > That said, there is definitely a chilling effect: developers are afraid of > losing their jobs or facing trouble at work if they even state their opinions > in support of GPL enforcement, let alone doing enforcement. I'm sure there are situations in which a developer's non-work activities enforcing the GPL could interfere with their work obligations (e.g. if the developer works at a law firm engaged in defending against the same kind of Linux/GPL cases that they bring in their spare time as a former kernel dev), but in the general case, I hope that employers would not be able to quash an employee's personal, non-work-time hobby of GPL enforcement. Is there anything specific that could be done to reduce the possibility of reprisal from an employer? I assume that in the process of bringing suit against a company, the names of all copyright holders would be made public, so masking identity to avoid harassment wouldn't work. > I think most people on this list would be surprised to learn and will > probably doubt me when I say there is a not-really-coordinated, but nearly > universal, effort by many "Linux"-related companies, working very hard to > squelch anyone who attempts to enforce the GPL, and doubly so against anyone > who coordinates many people together to enforce GPL (like I do). I can certainly imagine that many such "Linux"-related companies would be annoyed with the work you do regarding GPL enforcement, as they'd much rather pretend that the kernel Linux and other pieces of software may be used willy-nilly. They see you and your colleagues as an impediment to their desire to ship a proprietary product, and the GPL as a mechanism that might allow others to reuse their work. But though some may wish to peel the GPL badge off the kernel and replace it with an "Apache" or "BSD" one, I am a bit surprised to hear that companies are working so hard to squelch your work. I'd expect them to be frustrated, perhaps, but not to redouble their efforts when you/your non-profit steps up to coordinate enforcement of copyleft. Do the companies not understand the GPL, or are they willfully violating it because they don't think anyone will bother to enforce it? To what extent would further education at the developer/engineer level help? Cheers, --R
