> Vizio has argued that SFC cannot enforce a request for source code if it does not hold copyright to the underlying software.
The FAQ previously stated
> Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations.
And now it states
> Since the GPL is a copyright license, it can be enforced by the copyright holders of the software. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. In addition, we encourage the use of any legal mechanism available to users for obtaining complete and corresponding source code, as is their right, and enforcing full compliance with the GNU GPL. After all, we developed the GNU GPL to make software free for all its users.
So the only change in the first part is that
> the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL
became
> it can be enforced by the copyright holders of the software
which, obviously, no longer excludes other groups.
Having documentation of non-compliance due to this case, couldn't the copyright holders as a court to bar Visio from further use of the software in their products?
> In that spirit, we have updated the above FAQ to read as follows: [...] After all, we developed the GNU GPL to make software free for all its users.
After a particular small piece of the FSF's language was under close legal scrutiny, did they double-down on their use of "free" in the same piece?
Besides the confusion of "free" in promotions of their idea, isn't there now a new problem? "Your honor, I'm glad you asked that; by 'free' here, we mean something different than what everyone else has long meant in this context. ... Yes, we agree that it's confusing, but the confusion isn't a bug, but a feature: it's an opportunity to engage in dialogue, to explain that we mean something different than the normal reasonable person's interpretation of the plain language of what we said."
wait, do i get this right? visio is subpoenaing the FSF in order to have them confirm their interpretation of the FAQ and they expect that to work in their favor?
> Vizio has argued that SFC cannot enforce a request for source code if it does not hold copyright to the underlying software.
The FAQ previously stated
> Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations.
And now it states
> Since the GPL is a copyright license, it can be enforced by the copyright holders of the software. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. In addition, we encourage the use of any legal mechanism available to users for obtaining complete and corresponding source code, as is their right, and enforcing full compliance with the GNU GPL. After all, we developed the GNU GPL to make software free for all its users.
So the only change in the first part is that
> the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL
became
> it can be enforced by the copyright holders of the software
which, obviously, no longer excludes other groups.