
On the boundaries of GPL enforcement - sciurus
https://lwn.net/Articles/694890/
======
jlgaddis
First, let me say that, in general, a) I support the idea and mission of the
SFC, and b) I have never heard of Patrick McHardy prior to reading this
article (and linked blog post). In addition, I "have no dog in this fight", if
you will. (My only affiliation with SFC is as the owner of a company which has
previously donated funds to them. I don't necessarily agree with them 100% but
I do support their "end goal".)

This article links to a recent SFC blog post, "The Importance of Following
Community-Oriented Principles in GPL Enforcement Work" [0]. Upon reading that
blog post, my first impression is that the SFC is attempting to get others to
"gang up" on Patrick and pressure him into accepting their "principles".

If my understanding -- that Patrick holds copyright to (at least some of) the
netfilter code -- is correct, then Patrick is entitled to pursue any
"enforcement actions" he wishes. The SFC is arguing that their "Principles" is
the _only_ "proper" way to pursue compliance. That, obviously, is not the
case. Patrick is under no obligation to the SFC, the netfilter core team, or
the "community" to follow their self-imposed "Principles" or to do what the
SFC wishes.

I'm not sure what the SFCs goal here is, other than to gain more support for
their own "Principles" and get others to state that they're "right". They're
trying to force their "Principles" on everyone and have now started publicly
calling out individuals who don't agree with them.

[0]: [https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/jul/19/patrick-
mchardy-g...](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/jul/19/patrick-mchardy-gpl-
enforcement/)

~~~
DannyBee
"If my understanding -- that Patrick holds copyright to (at least some of) the
netfilter code -- is correct, then Patrick is entitled to pursue any
"enforcement actions" he wishes."

He is. However, and i sadly, can't go into detail with this[1], but the
methods he is using to do so are considered by even pretty staunch GPL
advocates to be pretty abhorrent. The things he claims are his are ...
interesting. From what i understand, he put his name on some files by making
1-2 line changes (and requesting his name be added. You can actually see this
in the netfilter mailing list history) and then claims copyright to all of it.
His interpretations of the GPL are also, well, let's also just go with
"interesting". Suffice to say, if patrick was right, there is probably
literally no-one in the world who complies with the GPL or LGPL (IE not even
the FSF).

It's like some of the firms who are suing companies for ridiculous ADA
violations (not the "you have no wheelchair access to the movie theater"
type), or non-existent violations of california's prop 65 (the cancer
warning). From a social perspective, it's one thing if they actually care, and
are trying to cure those violations, and get companies to a care. But in a lot
of cases, they don't care. They don't want you to fix it, they want to make
money. In fact, it's better for them if you don't fix it. They strain the
boundaries of the law, etc, in that attempt to make money. Do they have the
right to do so? Yeah, sure. But it's pretty damn scummy in the opinion of a
lot of people.

[1] The reason nobody who has knowledge talks about this is because a lot of
this is being done (by Patrick) in ways to make sure it must be kept private
(again, that's what other lawyers tell me) and out of the public eye. So one
of the reasons you don't see blog posts detailing exactly what is going on is
because people are legally not allowed to talk about it (AFAIK)

~~~
Tomte
If his interpretations are as outlandish as you say he'll certainly lose
whenever someone pushes back. Has Schilling ever "won" an argument?

Considering that McHardy seems to go after companies and not some poor
individual, I suppose that pushback will occur.

If I take your claims at face value (and I tend to do so), then the FSF and
SFC side still doesn't look good.

They are basically saying that

(a) whenever they're (potentially) interested in enforcing the GPL nobody else
may also do that

(b) they reserve the right not to collect what the developers are owed(!), in
order to further their institutional and philosophical goals

To hell with them! I'm certainly supporting any individual developer's right
to enforce the GPL, and maybe even especially agains FSF/SFC's wishes.

~~~
Anon211
A company --rather than push back and follow the expensive legal route with an
(even slightly) uncertain, delayed outcome-- is much more inclined to try to
settle by paying some amount of money. Of course, in following the typical
blackmail scenario, this makes the company even more vulnerable to subsequent
similar requests.

Regarding what can be disclosed, my understanding is the same as of DannyBee
above (not first-hand knowledge, obviously), so I cannot say whether this is
the modus operandi in case here.

------
dragonwriter
> There is no real way to know how much the GPL has helped in the rise of
> Linux versus its non-copylefted alternatives, but it would be hard to argue
> that the license played no role whatsoever.

It would be very _easy_ to argue that the license (specifically, the copyleft
vs. noncopyleft FOSS license choice) played no role whatsoever, since Linux
was available -- and the dominant FOSS unix-alike OS -- before there FOSS
alternatives (copylefted or not) that weren't clouded by AT&T legal actions.
(Indeed, Torvalds himself has said that, if that _weren 't_ the case and BSD
had been available without the AT&T cloud over it, Linux wouldn't exist _at
all_.)

That aside, the whole piece, coming from the viewpoint that a copyright-owner
using the GPL license for their work and enforcing it as they see fit rather
than in the manner that the SFC prefers is "abuse", is somewhat bizarre.

If you want to have binding restrictions on enforcement of the license, they
need to be in the license.

~~~
swiley
The copy left license certainly has helped add driver code over the past few
years.

------
revelation
There seems to be some sort of feeling that GPL enforcement is "unjust",
"harsh" and should be limited to the most severe of cases where it benefits
some perverted vision of "license purity" and particular "pursuit of justice"
or "bigger than the pieces combined" purpose. It's almost turned into a meme
to call the GPL a "restrictive cancer" and push MIT so VC funded startups can
appropriate technology and give back nothing, so big companies can just use
the BusyBox-clone and shut us out of all sorts of devices.

To hell with it. If McHardy wants to aggressively enforce the GPL against
violators, that is his mo. I have empathy with the single mother hit with a
copyright C&D for music her kids downloaded, I have none with companies,
designed for the single purpose of limiting liability.

~~~
ashitlerferad
Aggressive GPL enforcement is not problematic, what is problematic is using
GPL enforcement to trick people into using proprietary versions of GPLed
software.

~~~
Tomte
How does he "trick someone"?

------
legulere
> In effect, that turns the GPL into the BSD license, which has plenty of
> implications of its own.

You still need to retain copyright notices with the BSD license. I think there
once was a case where some BSD licensed code was copied into linux and the BSD
license was broken.

A better analogy would be public domain. There's nothing really wrong with
setting your code public domain (e.g. through CC zero). You're setting your
code free for everyone to use without any conditions. If someone wants to
contribute, they will, if not they won't. No license is going to change that.
And the code in the version you put up will always remain in public domain.

------
baybal2
I would go after all and every license violator of any code I wrote. If Google
tomorrow messes up with my code in the Kernel, I care not if they have to
discontinue Android overnight.

And yes, they did lobby for GPL2 Kernel. Now eat it.

