{\Large {\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies} \\

the X11-style or various BSD licenses, GPL (and by extension, the LGPL) is

propagate throughout the distribution chain of the software.

In conjunction with \S 4's termination of violators' rights, there is one

In fact, when we discover a GPL violation that occurred only once --- for

diligence.  In our minds, that is an educational problem, and unless the

is benefiting from Free Software, and we understand that sometimes they

\section{How are Violations Discovered?}

Our enforcement of GPL is not a fund-raising effort; in fact, FSF's GPL

compliance lab runs at a loss (in other words, it is subsided by our

donors).  Our violation reports come from volunteers, who have encountered

in their business or personal life, a device or software product that

appears to contain GPL'd software; these reports are usually sent via

email to $<$license-violation@fsf.org$>$.

Our first order of business, upon receiving such a report, is to seek

independent confirmation.  When possible, we get a copy of the software

product.  For example, if it is an offering that is downloadable from a

website, we download it and investigate ourselves.  When it is not

possible for us to actually get a copy of the software, we ask the

reporter to go through the same process we use in examining the software.

By rough estimation, about 95\% of violations at this stage can be

confirmed by simple commands.  Since almost all violators have merely made

an error, and have no nefarious intentions, they have made no attempt to

remove our copyright notices from the software.  Given the third-party

binary, {\tt tpb}, usually, a simple command (on a GNU/Linux system) such

as the following will find an Free Software copyright notice and GPL

reference:

\begin{quotation}

{\tt string tpb | grep Copyright}

\end{quotation}

In other words, it is usually more than trivial to confirm that GPL'd

software is included.

Once we have confirmed that a violation has indeed occurred, we must then

determine whose copyright has been violated.  Contrary to popular belief,

FSF does not have the power to enforce GPL in all cases.  Since GPL

operates under copyright law, the powers of enforcement --- to seek

redress once \S 4 has been invoked --- lies with the copyright holder of

the software.  FSF is one of the largest copyright holders in the world

of GPL'd software, but we are by no means the only one.  Thus, we

sometimes discover that while GPL'd code is present in the software,

there is no software copyrighted by FSF.

In cases where FSF does not hold copyright interest in the software, but

we have confirmed a violation, we contact the copyright holders of the

software, and encourage them to enforce GPL\@.  We offer our good offices

to help negotiate compliance on their behalf, and many times we help as a

third party to settle such GPL violations.  However, what we will

describe in this course is FSF's first-hand experience enforcing its own

copyrights and GPL\@.

cooperation and mutual help.  Our community has learned that cooperation

works best when you assume the best of others, and only change policy,

procedures and attitudes when some specific event or occurrence indicates

that a change is necessary.  We treat the process of GPL enforcement in

the same way; our goal is to encourage violators to join the cooperative

community of software sharing, so we want to open our hand in friendship

to them.

Therefore, once we have confirmed a violation, our first assumption is

that the violation is an oversight or otherwise a mistake due to confusion

about the terms of the license.  We reach out to the violator and ask them

to work with us in a collaborative way to bring the product into

compliance.  We have received the gamut of possible reactions to such

requests, and in this course, we examine four specific examples of such

compliance work.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Case Study: Davrik's Modified GCC}

In our first case study, we will consider Davrik, a company that produces

software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors who products consumer

electronic devices.

\section{Facts}

One of Davrik's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')

designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of

consumer electronics devices.

FSF received a report that the SDK may be based on the GNU Compiler

Collection (which is an FSF-copyrighted collection of tools for software

development in C, C++ and other popular languages).  FSF investigated the

claim, but was unable to confirm the violation.  The violation reporter

was unresponsive to follow-up requests for more information.

Since FSF was unable to confirm the violation, we did not pursue it any

further.  Bogus reports do happen, and we do not want to burden companies

with specious GPL violation complaints.  FSF shelved the matter until

more evidence was discovered.

FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports

surfaced from other violation reports, both of whom had used the product

professional and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@.  FSF's

Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm

the violation, and it was confirmed that the product was indeed a

derivative work of GCC, ported to Windows and with a number of features

added, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and

additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for the

specific devices.  FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these

customers and pointed out, for example, that Davrik only needed to provide

source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need

to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised).  The violators

confirmed that such requests were not answered.

FSF brought the matter to the attention of Davrik, who immediately

escalated the matter to their attorneys.  After a long negotiation, Davrik

acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of GCC\@.  Davrik

released most of the source, but some disagreement occurred over whether LP

was a derivate work of GCC\@.  After repeated FSF inquiries, Davrik

reaudited the source and discovered that FSF's analysis was correct and

determined that LP include a number of source files copied from the GCC

code-base.

\label{davrik-build-problems}

Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the

violation reporters if it addressed the problem.  Reports came back that

in fact the source did not properly build.  FSF asked Davrik to provide

better build instructions with the software, and such build instructions

were incorporated into the next software release.

At FSF's request as well, Davrik informed customers who had previously

purchased the product that the source was now available, by announcing

the available on its website and via a customer newsletter.

Davrik did have some concerns regarding patents.  They wished to include a

statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting

any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by GPL\@.

They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights

granted by GPL\@.  The following language was negotiated to be included

with the release:

\begin{quotation}

Subject to the qualifications stated below, Davrik, on behalf of itself

and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your

making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Davrik's GNU

Utilities or derivative works of the Davrik's GNU Utilities

("Derivatives"), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are

licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License.  The

Claims are the claims of patents that Davrik or its Subsidiaries have

standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or

sale of an Davrik Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed

by Davrik and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;

the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Davrik that

cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with

the Davrik's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same

patent as a Claim.  Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by

Davrik.

This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already

have under the GNU General Public License, Version 2.

\end{quotation}

This quelled Davrik's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to

do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that they

give no permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were not already

exercised in their GPL'd software release.

Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed who is

responsible for all matters of GPL Compliance inside the company.  Darvik

is responsible for informing FSF if the position is given to someone else

inside the company, and making sure that FSF has direct contact

information with Darvik's Compliance Officer.

\section{Lessons}

This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

\begin{enumerate}

\item {\bf Enforcement should not begin until the evidence is confirmed.}

  Most companies who distribute GPL'd software do so in compliance, and at

  times, violation reports are mistaken.  Even with extensive efforts in

  GPL education, many users do not fully understand their rights and the

  obligations that companies have.  By working through the investigation

  with reporters, the violation can be properly confirmed, and {\bf the

    user of the software can be educated about what to expect as a user}.

  When users and customers of GPL'd products know their rights, what to

  expect, and how to properly exercise their rights (particularly under \S

  3(b)), it reduces the chances for user frustration and inappropriate

  community outcry about an alleged GPL violation.

\item {\bf GPL compliance requires friendly negotiation and

  cooperation.}  Often, attorneys and managers are legitimately surprised

  to find out GPL'd software is included in their company's products.

  Engineers sometimes include GPL'd software without understanding the

  requirements.  This does not excuse companies from their obligations

  under the license, but it does mean that care and patience are

  essential for reaching GPL compliance.  We want companies to understand

  that participating and benefiting from a collaborative Free Software

  community is not a burden, so we strive to make the process of coming

  into compliance when a problem occurs as smooth as possible.

\item {\bf Confirming compliance is a community effort.}  The whole point

  of making sure that software distributors respect the terms of GPL is to

  allow a thriving software sharing community to benefit and improve the

  work.  FSF are not the experts on how a compiler for consumer electronic

  devices should work.  We therefore inform the community who originally

  brought the violation to our attention and ask them to assist in

  evaluation and confirmation of the product's compliance.  Of course, FSF

  coordinates and oversees the process, but we do not want compliance for

  compliance's sake; rather, we wish to foster a cooperating community of

  development around the Free Software in question, and encourage the

  once-violator to begin participating in that community.

\item {\bf Informing the harmed community is part of compliance.} FSF asks

  violators to make some attempt --- such as via newsletters and the

  company's website --- to inform those who already have the products as

  to their rights under GPL\@.  One of the key thrusts of GPL's \S 1 and

  \S 3 is to {\em make sure the user knows he has these rights\/}.  If a

  product was received out of compliance by a customer, they may never

  actually discover that they had such rights.  Informing them, in a way

  that is not burdensome but has a high probability of successfully

  reaching those who would seek to exercise their freedoms, is essential

  to properly remedy the mistake.

\item {\bf Lines between various copyright, patent, and other legal

  mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.}  The most

  difficult negotiation point of this compliance case was drafting

  language that simultaneously protected the Davrik's patent rights

  outside of the GPL'd source, but was consistent with the implicit patent

  grant in GPL\@.  As we discussed in the first course in this series,

  there is indeed an implicit patent grant with GPL, thanks to \S 6 and \S

  7.  However, many companies become nervous and wish to make the grant

  explicit to assure themselves that the grant is sufficiently narrow for

  their needs.  We understand that there is no reasonable way to determine

  what patent claims read on a company's GPL holdings and which do not, so

  we do not object to general language that explicitly narrows the patent

  grant to only those patents that were, in fact, exercised by the GPL'd

  software as released by the company.

\end{enumerate}

\chapter{Bracken: a Minor Violation in a GNU/Linux Distribution}

Bracken produces a GNU/Linux operating system product that is sold

primarily to OEM vendors to be placed in appliance devices that are used

for a single purpose, such as an Internet-browsing-only device.  The

product is almost 100\% Free Software, mostly licensed under GPL and

related Free Software licenses.

FSF found out about this violation through a report first posted in a

comment on a Slashdot\footnote{Slashdot is a popular news and discussion

  site for technical readers.} comment, and then later brought to our

attention by another Free Software copyright holder who had discovered the

same violation.

Bracken's GNU/Linux product is delivered directly from their website.

This allowed FSF engineers to directly download and confirm the violation

quickly.  It was discovered that there were two primary problems with the

online distribution:

\begin{itemize}

\item No source code nor offer for source code was provided for a number

  of components for the distributed GNU/Linux system; only binaries were

  available.

\item An End User License Agreement (``EULA'') was included that

  contradicted the permissions granted by GPL\@.

\end{itemize}

FSF contacted Bracken and gave them the details of the violation. Bracken

immediately ceased distribution of the product temporarily, and set forth

a plan to bring themselves back into compliance.  This plan included the

following steps:

\begin{itemize}

\item Bracken attorneys would rewrite the EULA to comply with GPL, and

  would vet the new EULA through FSF before use.

\item Bracken engineers would provide source side-by-side with the

  binaries for the GNU/Linux distribution on the site (and on CD's, if

  ever they distributed that way).

\item Bracken attorneys would run an internal seminar for its engineers

  regarding GPL proper compliance, to help ensure that such oversights

  regarding source releases would not occur in the future.

\item Bracken would resume distribution of the product only after FSF

  formally restored Bracken's distribution rights.

\end{itemize}

This work was completed in the matter of about a month.  FSF approved the

new EULA text.  They key portion in the EULA relating to GPL read as

follows:

\begin{quotation}

Many of the Software Programs included in Bracken Software are distributed

under the terms of agreements with Third Parties (``Third Party

Agreements'') which may expand or limit the Licensee's rights to use

certain Software Programs as set forth in [this EULA].  Certain Software

Programs may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under the GNU

General Public License and other similar license agreements listed in part

in this section which, among other rights, permit the Licensee to copy,

modify and redistribute certain Software Programs, or portions thereof,

and have access to the source code of certain Software Programs, or

portions thereof.  In addition, certain Software Programs, or portions

thereof, may be licensed (or sublicensed) to Licensee under terms stricter

than those set forth in [this EULA].  The Licensee must review the

electronic documentation that accompanies certain Software Programs, or

portions thereof, for the applicable Third Party Agreements.  To the

extent any Third Party Agreements require that Bracken provide rights to

use, copy or modify a Software Program that are broader than the rights

granted to the Licensee in [this EULA], then such rights shall take

precedence over the rights and restrictions granted in this Agreement

solely for such Software Programs.

\end{quotation}

FSF restored Bracken's distribution rights shortly after the work was

completed as described.

\section{Lessons Learned}

This case was probably them most quickly and easily resolved of all GPL

violations in the history of FSF's Compliance Lab.  The ease with which

the problem was resolved shows a number of cultural factors that play a

role in GPL compliance.

\begin{enumerate}

\item {\bf Companies that understand Free Software culture better have an

  easier time with compliance.}  Bracken's products were designed and

  build around the GNU/Linux system and Free Software components.  Their

  engineers were deeply familiar with the Free Software ecosystem, and

  their lawyers had seen and reviewed GPL before.  The violation was

  completely an honest mistake, and since the culture inside the company

  had already adapted to the cooperative style of resolution to problems

  in the Free Software world, there was very little work for either

  party to bring the product into compliance.

\item {\bf When people in key positions understand the Free Software

  nature of their software products, compliance concerns are as mundane as

  minor software bugs.}  Even the most functional system or structure has

  its problems, and successful business often depends on agile response to

  the problems that do come up; avoiding problems altogether is a pipe

  dream.  Minor GPL violations can and do happen even with well-informed

  redistributors, but when the company --- and in particular, the lawyers,

  managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product lines --

  have adapted to the cooperate Free Software culture, resolving such

  problems are merely a mundane details of typical operation and resolved

  just as easily.

\item {\bf Legally, distribution must stop when a violation is

  identified.}  In our opinion, Bracken went above and beyond the call by

  ceasing distribution while the violation was being resolved.  Under GPL

  \S 4, the redistributor loses the right to distribute the software, and

  thus they are in ongoing violation of copyright law as they distribute.

  It is FSF's policy to temporarily allow distribution while compliance

  negotiations are ongoing and only in the most extreme cases where the

  other party appears to be negotiating in bad faith does FSF even

  threaten an injunction on copyright grounds.  However, Bracken --- as a

  good Free Software citizen --- chose to be on the safe side and do the

  legally correct thing while the violation case was pending.  Since from

  start to finish it took less than am month to resolve, this lapse in

  distribute did not, to FSF's knowledge, impact their business in any

  way.

\item {\bf EULAs are a common area for GPL problems.}  Often, EULAs are

  drafted from boilerplate text that a company uses for all its products.

  Even the most diligent attorneys forget or simply do not know that a

  product contains software licensed under GPL and other Free Software

  licenses.  Drafting a EULA that accounts for such licenses is

  straightforward; the text quoted above works just fine.  The EULA must

  be designed so that it does not trump and rights and permissions already

  granted by GPL\@, and it must be certain that if there is a conflict

  between EULA and GPL, with regard to GPL'd code, that the GPL is the

  overriding license.

\item {\bf Compliance Officers are rarely necessary when companies are

  educated about GPL compliance.}  As we saw in the Davrik case, FSF asks

  that a formal ``GPL Compliance Officer'' be appointed inside a

  previously violating organization to shepherd the organization to a

  cooperative approach with regard to GPL compliance.  However, when FSF

  sees that an organization already has such an approach, there is no

  need to request that such an officer be appointed.

\end{enumerate}

\chapter{Vigorien: Security, Export Controls, and GPL Compliance}

This case study introduces how concerns of ``security through obscurity''

and regulatory problems can impact GPL compliance matters.

\section{The Facts}

Vigorien distributes a backup solution product that allows system

administrators to create encrypted backups of file-systems on Unix-like

computers.  The product is based on GNU tar, a backup utility that

replaces the standard Unix utility, ``tar'', but has additional features.

Vigorien's backup solution added cryptographic features to GNU tar, and

included a suite of utilities and graphical user interfaces surrounding

GNU tar to make backups convenient.

FSF discovered the violation from a user report, and determined that the

cryptographic features were the only part of the product that constituted

a derivative work of GNU tar; the extraneous utilities merely made

``shell'' calls out to GNU tar.  FSF requested that Vigorien come into

compliance with GPL by releasing the source of GNU tar, with the

cryptographic modifications, to its customers.

Vigorien released the GNU tar sources, but kept the cryptographic library

proprietary.  They argued that the security of their system depending on

keeping the software proprietary and that regardless, USA export

restrictions on cryptographic software prohibited such a release.  FSF

disputed the claim on the first count, pointing out that Vigorien's had

only one option if they did not want to release the source: they would

have to remove GNU tar from the software and not distribute it further.

Vigorien rejected this suggestion, since GNU tar was an integral part of

the product and the security changes were useless without GNU tar.

Regarding the export control claims, FSF proposed a number of options,

including release of the source from one of Vigorien's divisions overseas

where no such restrictions occurred, but Vigorien argued that the problem

was insoluble because they operated primarily in the USA\@.

The deadlock on the second issue was resolved when those cryptographic

export restrictions were lifted shortly thereafter, and FSF again raised

the matter with Vigorien.  At that point, they dropped the first claim and

agreed to release the remaining source module to their customers.  They

did so, and the violation was resolved.

\section{Lessons Learned}

\begin{enumerate}

\item {\bf Removing the GPL'd portion of the product is always an option.}

  Many violators' first response is to simply refuse to release the source

  code as GPL required.  FSF offers the option to simply remove the GPL'd

  portions from the product and continue along without them indefinitely.

  Every case where this has been suggested has led to the same conclusion.

  Like Vigorien, the violator argues that the product cannot function

  without the GPL'd components and they cannot effectively replace them.

  Such an outcome of course is further evidence that the combined work in

  question is indeed a derivative work of the original GPL'd component.

  If the other components cannot stand on their own and be useful without

  the GPL'd portions, then one cannot effectively argue that the work as a

  whole is not a derivative of the GPL'd portions.

\item {\bf ``Security'' concerns do not exonerate a distributor from GPL

  obligations, and ``security through obscurity'' does not work anyway.}

  The argument that ``this is security software, so it cannot be released

  in source form'' is not a valid defense for explaining why the terms of

  the GPL are ignored.  If companies do not want to release source code

  for some reason, then they should not base the work on GPL'd software.

  No external argument for non-compliance can hold weight if the work as

  whole is indeed a derivative work of a GPL'd program.

  The ``security concerns'' argument is often floated as a reason to keep

  software proprietary, but the computer security community has on

  numerous occasions confirmed that such arguments are entirely specious.

  Security experts have found --- since the beginnings of the field of

  cryptography in the ancient word --- that sharing results about systems

  and having such systems withstand peer review and scrutiny builds the

  most secure systems.  While full disclosure may help some who wish to

  compromise security, it helps those who want to fix problems even more

  by identifying them early.

\item {\bf External regulatory problems can be difficult to resolve.}

  GPL, though copyright law, does not have the power to trump regulations

  like export controls.  While Vigorien's ``security concerns'' were

  specious, their export control concerns were not.  It is indeed a

  difficult problem that FSF acknowledges.  We want compliance with GPL

  and respect for users' freedoms, but we certainly do not expect

  companies to commit criminal offenses for the sake of compliance.  We

  will see more about this issue in our next case study.

\end{enumerate}

\chapter{Haxil, Polgara, and Thesulac: Mergers, Upstream Providers and Radio Devices}

This case study considers an ongoing (at the time of writing) violation

that occurred.  By the end of the investigation period, three companies

were involved and many complex issues arose.

\section{The Facts}

Haxil produced a consumer electronics device which included a mini

GNU/Linux distribution to control the device.  The device was of interest

to many technically minded consumers, who purchased the device and very

quickly discovered that Free Software was included without source.

Mailing lists throughout the Free Software community erupted with

complaints about the problem, and FSF quickly investigated.

FSF confirmed that FSF-copyrighted GPL'd software was included.  In

addition, the whole distribution included GPL'd works from hundreds of

individual copyright holders, many of whom were, at this point, up in

arms about the violation.

Meanwhile, Haxil was in the midst of being acquired by Polgara.  Polgara

was as surprised as everyone else to discover the product was based on

GPL'd software; it had not been part of the disclosures made during

acquisition.  FSF contacted both Haxil and Polgara, and product managers

who had transitioned into the ``Haxil division'' of newly merged Polgara

company worked and Polgara's General Counsel's office worked with FSF on

the matter.

FSF meanwhile formed a coalition with the other primary copyright holders

to pursue the enforcement effort on their behalf.  FSF communicated

directly with Polgara's representatives to begin working through the

issues on behalf of FSF itself and the Free Software community at large.

Polgara pointed out that the software distribution they used was mostly

contributed by an upstream provider, Thesulac, and Haxil's changes to that

code base were minimal.  Polgara negotiated with Thesulac to obtain the

source, although the issue was moving very slowly in the channels between

Polgara and Thesulac.

FSF encouraged a round-table meeting so that high bandwidth communication

could occur between FSF, Polgara and Thesulac.  Polgara and Thesulac

agreed, and that discussion began.  Thesulac provided nearly complete

sources to Polgara, and Polgara made a full software release on their

website.  At the time of writing, that software still has some build

problems (similar those that occurred with Davrik, as described in

Section~\ref{davrik-build-problems}).  FSF continues to negotiate with

Polgara and Thesulac to resolve these problems, which have a clear path to

solution and are expected to resolve.

Similar to the Vigorien case, Thesulac has regulatory concerns.  In this

case, it is not export controls --- an issue that has since been resolved

--- but radio spectrum regulation.  Since this consumer electronic device

contains a software-programmable radio transmitter, regulations in (at

least) the USA and Japan prohibit release of those portions of the code

that operate the device.  Since this is a low-level programming issue, the

changes to operate the device are a derivative work of the kernel named

Linux.  This situation remains unresolved at the time of writing, although

FSF continues to negotiation with Thesulac and the Linux community

regarding the problem.

\section{Lessons Learned}

\begin{enumerate}

\item {\bf Community outrage, while justified, can often make negotiation

  more difficult.}  FSF has a strong policy to not publicized names of GPL

  violators if they are negotiating in a friendly way and operating in

  good faith toward compliance.  Most violations are honest mistakes, and

  FSF sees no reason to publicly admonish violators who genuinely see to

  come into compliance with GPL and to work hard staying in compliance.

  This case was so public in the Free Software community that both Haxil's

  and Polgara's representatives were nearly shell-shocked by the time FSF

  began negotiations.  There was much work required to diffuse the

  situation.  We empathize with our community and their outrage about GPL

  violations, but we also want to follow a path that leads expediently

  to compliance.  In our experience, public outcry works best as a last

  resort, not the first.

\item {\bf For software companies, GPL compliance belongs on a corporate

  acquisition checklist. }  Polgara was truly amazed that Haxil had used

  GPL'd software in a major new product line but never informed Polgara

  during the acquisition process.  While GPL compliance is not a

  particularly difficult matter, it is an additional obligation that comes

  along with the product line.  When planning mergers and joint ventures,

  include lists of GPL'd components contained in the products discussed.

\item {\bf Compliance problems of upstream providers do not excuse a

  violation for the downstream distributor.}  To paraphrase \S 6, upstream

  providers are not responsible for enforcing compliance of their

  downstream, nor are downstream distributors responsible for compliance

  problems of upstream providers.  However, engaging in distribution of

  GPL'd works out of compliance is still just that --- a compliance

  problem.  When FSF carries out enforcement, we are patient and

  sympathetic when the problem appears to be upstream.  In fact, we urge

  the violator to point us to the upstream provider to talk to them, and

  in this case we were happy to begin negotiations with Thesulac.  However,

  Polgara still has an obligation to bring their product into compliance.

\item {\bf It behooves upstream providers to advise downstream

  distributors about compliance matters.}  FSF has encouraged Thesulac to

  distribute a ``good practices for GPL compliance'' document with their

  product.  Polgara added various software components to Thesulac's

  product, and it is conceivable that such additions can introduce

  compliance.  In FSF's opinion, Thesulac is no way legally responsible

  for such a violation introduced by their customer, but it behooves them

  from a business standpoint to educate their customers about using the

  product.  We can argue whether or not it is your coffee vendor's fault

  if you burn yourself with their product, but (likely) no one on either

  side would dispute the prudence of placing a ``caution: hot'' label on

  the cup.

\item {\bf FSF enforcement often avoids redundant enforcement cases from

  many parties.}  Most Free Software systems have hundreds of copyright

  holders.  Some have thousands.  FSF is in a unique position as one of

  the largest single copyright holders on GPL'd software and as a

  respected umpire in the community neutrally enforcing the rules of the

  GPL road.  FSF works hard in the community to convince copyright

  holders that consolidating GPL claims through FSF is better for them,

  and more likely to yield positive compliance results.

  A few copyright holders engage in the ``proprietary relicensing''

  business, so they use GPL enforcement as a sales channel for that

  business.  FSF, as a community-oriented not-for-profit organization,

  seeks only to preserve the freedom of Free Software in its enforcement

  efforts.  As it turns out, most of the community of copyright holders

  of Free Software want the same thing.  Share and share alike is a

  simple rule to follow, and following that rule to FSF's satisfaction

  usually means you are following it to the satisfaction of the entire

  Free Software community.

\end{enumerate}

\chapter{Good Practices for Compliance}

Generally, from the experience of GPL enforcement, we glean the following

general practices that can help in GPL compliance for organizations that

distribute products based on GPL'd software:

\begin{enumerate}

\item Talk to your software engineers and ask them where they got the

  components they use in the products they build.  Find out if GPL'd

  components are present.

\item Teach your engineering staff to pay attention to license documents.

  Give them easy-to-follow policies to get approval for using a Free

  Software component.

\item Build a ``Free Software Licensing'' committee that handles requests

  and questions about GPL and other Free Software licenses.

\item Add ``What parts of your products are under GPL or other Free

  Software licenses?'' to your checklist of questions to ask when you

  consider mergers, acquisitions, or joint ventures.

\item Encourage your engineers to participate collaboratively with GPL'd

  software development.  The more knowledge about the Free Software world

  your organization has, the better equipped it is to deal with this

  rapidly changing field.

\item When someone points out a potential GPL violation in one of your

  products, do not assume the product line is doomed.  GPL is not a virus;

  merely having GPL'd code in one part of a product does not necessarily

  mean that every related product must also be GPL'd.  And, even if some

  software needs to be released that was not before, the product will

  surely still survive.  In FSF's enforcement efforts, we have not yet

  seen a product line die because source was released to customers in

  compliance with GPL.

\end{enumerate}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista Davrik Davrik's Darvik

% LocalWords:  Darvik's Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara

% LocalWords:  Thesulac Polgara's Haxil's Thesulac's