Wednesday 7 November 2012

GPL Compliance Is Easier Than You Think

Bradley M. Kuhn

Wednesday 7 November 2012

My History

Worked my first GPL enforcement case in 1999 (as FSF volunteer). FSF Executive Director, 2000–2005. Now an FSF Director. President, Software Freedom Conservancy, 2006-present. ●Plurality of my time since 1999 has been spent on GPL enforcement. ●I’m the key person “responsible” for nearly every major USA GPL enforcement action. Conservancy & FSF are responsible for nearly all GPL enforcement in USA.

They Say Compliance is Hard …

FUD says: compliance is difficult. FUD says: you should fear enforcement.

The “Compliance” Industry

I’m disturbed Harald Welte & I’ve inspired creation of the “compliance” industry. Ironically, this industry wants enforcement to seem worse than it is. FUD aids their mission.

FUD Becomes Marketing

Salespeople sell things you don’t need. Most talking of “compliance” wanna sell you proprietary junk. ●Educate yourself: ●Ask people who doenforcement, not sales people.

Coca-Cola’s by far the world’s number one soft drink, and they spend more money than anybody on advertising. — Tracy Flick, character in the 1999 film, Election

On Requirement By License

●GPL == Constitution of Software Freedom Land. ●a “written down” embodiment of core principles. ●GPL’s a detailed implementation of the four freedoms: ●freedom to run and study. ●freedom to improve. ●freedom to share. ●freedom to share improvements. ●Any strict rules in copyleft licenses are designed to uphold these freedoms.

Ever Ignored One of These?

How Badly?

Routinely 10 over limit? Routinely 20 over limit? Routinely 30 over limit? Routinely 40 over limit?

What About Commercial Vehicles?

Nearly all GPL violations are by for-profit companies. ●They absolutely increase their profits by failing to comply … ●… just like truckers who deliver faster by speeding. Both undercut those who comply. ●But it’s still a matter of degree: ●should speeding trucks get pulled over when they go 57 km/h?

Angels Dancing on Heads of Pins

And Schibler with others, maketh the difference of extension to be this, that Angels can contract their whole substance into one part of space, and therefore have not partes extra partes. Whereupon it is that the Schoolmen have questioned how many Angels may fit upon the point of a Needle? — Richard Baxter, The Reasons of the Christian Religion, 1667.

Not All Violations Are Equal

It’s fun to debate esoteric licensing situations & details … … but it doesn’t address the fundamental problem: ●hundreds of egregious violations are ongoing and mostly ignored … ●… (except by me, Harald, and FSF).

Egregious Violations

●The primary point of any copyleft license: ●… is to make sure source code is available. ●… and make sure it is the right source code. ●Nearly all the violations I handle are: ●no-source-nor-offer: complete disregard for GPLv2§3 / GPLv3§6 ●offer-fail: bogus offer for source under GPLv2§3(b) / GPLv3§6(b) ●I’ve been doing this 13 years & the “egregious” queue has never been near empty.

I Know They Won’t Be Perfect

Believe it or not, I’m a pragmatist. ●But I’m oft-accused of wanting perfect compliance. ●(Mainly by people who don’t like copyleft much.) ●Oddly, the compliance industry seek perfection: ●Probably because perfection costs you more … ●… than one of my enforcement actions.

FUD in LWN Comments

“It is possible for a mistake made by an ODM (like providing the wrong busybox source version) could result in the recall of millions of unrelated products.”

Sure, this is possible in theory … … but which enforcer asks for this in practice? I’ve accepted disgusting settlement terms just to avoid disrupting a violator’s business.

FUD in LWN Comments

“[I’ve] heard … worries about … “copyright trolls” It’s not too hard to imagine that somebody with a trollish inclination might come into possession of … © on some kernel code … shak[e] down former violators with threats of lawsuits”

You need to read the statutes. ●You can’t get rich suing for © infringement … ●… particularly if broad license was available. ●even if NPO enforcement “inspired” © trolls ●… it’s already too late on that.

Challenges of Modern Compliance

Savvy violators means intelligent discussion. ●Clueless violators means difficult conversations: ●Me: “Your software violates GPL.” ●Them: “We make hardware.” ●Me: “I know, but it has software in it. Our members’ software. Under the GPL.” ●Them: “No, it doesn’t. We make hardware.” ●Me: “But your firmware download…on your website…that’s software.” ●Them: “Oh, that’s not ours. We got that from someone. Nothing to do with us.” Having the above conversation across four phone calls every two months is why I seem so insane most of the time.

A Radical Statement

Copyleft compliance isn’t a legal problem … … or even a “knowledge” problem … … it’s an engineering problem. Everything else is trivially fixed!

The Easy Parts of Compliance

Fixing copyright notices. Clarifying contradictory license texts. Other informational requirements.

The Only Hard Part of Compliance

CCS: complete, corresponding source code. Bulk of all enforcement time is spent on this. It’s hard b/c violators won’t let me talk to engineers … … or they don’t know who they are. … and the engineering problems aren’t even interesting!

On Asking for Complete Compliance

All GPL enforcers ask for this (including Harald). Indeed, most violators ask for this. As an engineering question, this is easier! Build scripts are usually for the whole system, not just one program. ●Universal compliance means: ●the enforcer becomes your expert witness … ●… should those mythical “copyright trolls” show up.

Other Requests (They’re Easy)

Notification to past recipients. Appoint GPL Compliance Officer. Periodic compliance reports. Yes, we do ask for some money.

Money

No one in non-profits is getting rich from this. ●Who should pay for enforcement: ●Those who comply or those who violate? ●Individual donors? There must be a deterrent. Non-profit enforcement == accountability. Confidentiality is something violators ask for.

Why Keep Doing Enforcement?

●It’s very simple: ●an unenforced GPL isthe ISC license. ●If the world prefers ISC, they will switch to it. ●It’s still Free Software, I’m not against it. ●When no software developers are left who want to enforce GPL … ●I’ll of course stop.

Why Enforce for More Projects?

●BusyBox once stood by itself. ●The criticism was: BusyBox shouldn’t act alone for complete compliance ●I agree this has some moral validity. ●BusyBox wanted others to stand with it on compliance in the embedded space. ●… and Samba & Linux copyright holders asked for this too. ●low-end embedded market needs attention. ●undercutting those who comply & really innovate. ●a market opportunity for many GPL projects to stand together.

Compliance As Collaboration

Multiple Conservancy projects are GPL or LGPL. ●Nearly all agree on compliance goals: ●Simply this: work with violators to get a source release that works. ●Conservancy does the work: ●giving updates to copyright holders involved … ●… using the tried-and-true, simple Free Software community tool: ●just a mailing list.

Who Can Join?

●Any copyright holder on an existing Conservancy project can request. ●approval for a compliance program required by projects’ leadership committee. ●Linux developers can join … ●… even though Linux proper isn’t a Conservancy project. ●They join through a “special” project … ●GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers.

Why Special Case Linux?

Linux violations are rampant. Frankly, BusyBox developers asked if we could engage. ●Also, various Linux developers … ●… like Matthew Garrett … ●… had bugged Conservancy for years to help with enforcement. ●Linus: “I wanted everyone to have their own copyrights so they could make their own decisions about this.” GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers gives structure to Linux compliance activity.

Please Never Forget

GPL compliance is (roughly) only about 5–10% of what Conservancy does. ●Most of what Conservancy does for its projects is really boring: ●flight reimbursements for developers. ●invoicing donors for their finanical donations. ●paying developers with those donations. ●handling other random logistical bulls*. ●No one finds those talks exciting.

More Info / Talk License

●URLs / Social Networking / Email: ●Conservancy: sfconservancy.org & @conservancy ●Me: faif.us, ebb.org/bkuhn & @bkuhn (identi.ca only) ●FSF Licensing Site: fsf.org/licensing ●Report GPL violations / Join Enforcement Coalition: <compliance@sfconservancy.org> ●Slides at: ebb.org/bkuhn/talks & gitorious.org/bkuhn/talks (source) Presentation and slides are: Copyright © 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Bradley M. Kuhn, and are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-By-SA) 3.0 United States License.

Some images included herein are ©’ed by others. I believe my use of those images is fair use under USA © law. However, I suggest you remove such images if you redistribute these slides under CC-By-SA-USA 3.0.