Copyleft/guide Changeset - c911d4f08565

% case-study-ethics.tex                                           -*- LaTeX -*-

%      Tutorial Text for GPL Compliance Case Studies

%                    and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing

%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course

% Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in

% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

\documentclass[12pt]{report}

\documentclass[11pt]{book}

% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}

% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}

% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}

\input{one-inch-margins}

% NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}

\usepackage{enumerate}

\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}

%\setlength\parindent{0pt}

...

@@ -23,28 +21,35 @@

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}

\frontmatter

\begin{titlepage}

\begin{center}

\vspace{.5in}

%\vspace{.5in}

\vfill

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

\includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}

\vspace{.7in}

\vfill

Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\

{\Large

{\sc GPL Compliance Case Studies} \\

\vfill

\vspace{.3in}

%\vspace{.7in}

% \vspace{.3in}

Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\

\vspace{.1in}

Wednesday 21 January 2004

Wednesday, 25 August 2004

\vspace{.7in}

% \vspace{.7in}

\vfill

{\large

Bradley M. Kuhn

...

@@ -63,6 +68,11 @@ Daniel Ravicher

Senior Counsel

Free Software Foundation

President and Executive Director

Public Patent Foundation

\end{center}

...

@@ -70,7 +80,7 @@ Free Software Foundation

\vfill

{\parindent 0in

Copyright \copyright{} 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.

\vspace{.3in}

...

@@ -81,48 +91,104 @@ any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

\end{titlepage}

\pagestyle{plain}

\pagenumbering{roman}

\begin{abstract}

\chapter*{GPL Compliance Case Studies}

\textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA 25 August 2004}

\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}

09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\

&\\

09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\

&\\

09:30 - 09:45 & Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

09:45 - 10:40 & GPL Violation Case Study A\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

10:40 - 11:00 & GPL Violation Case Study B\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

11:00 - 11:10 & Q \& A\\

&\\

11:10 - 11:20 & Break\\

&\\

11:20 - 11:50 & GPL Violation Case Study C\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

11:50 - 12:10 & GPL Violation Case Study D\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

12:10 - 12:20 & Good Practices for GPL Compliance\\

&\textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\

&\\

\end{tabular}

\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}

12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\

&\\

12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch and Lecture ``GPL 3: Prospects and Process''\\

& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\

&\\

14:00 - 15:40 & Ethical Considerations and Legal Practices\\

&\textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\

&\\

15:40 - 15:50 & Q \& A\\

&\\

15:50 - 16:00 & Break\\

&\\

16:00 - 17:30 & Current Issues in Free Software\\

& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\

&\\

17:30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\

\end{tabular}

\pagebreak

% =====================================================================

% START OF SECOND DAY SEMINAR SECTION

% =====================================================================

This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL compliance

cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory.  Each case offers unique

insights into problems that can arise when the terms of GPL are not

properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between the violator and

the copyright holder can yield positive results for both parties.

\chapter*{Preface}

This one-day course presents the details of five different GPL

compliance cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Each case

offers unique insights into problems that can arise when the terms of

GPL are not properly followed, and how diplomatic negotiation between

the violator and the copyright holder can yield positive results for

both parties.

Attendees should have successfully completely the course, a ``Detailed

Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL'', as the material from that course

forms the building blocks for this material.

Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL,'' as the material from that

course forms the building blocks for this material.

The course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or employers

that deal with Free Software on a regular basis.  However, technical

managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute Free Software

will also find the course very helpful.

This course is of most interest to lawyers who have clients or

employers that deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However,

technical managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute

Free Software will also find the course very helpful.

\bigskip

These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the

course presented.  Readers of this material should assume that they have

missed the bulk of the material, as the detailed discussion of these case

studies is the most illuminating part about them.  Merely reading this

material is akin to matriculating into a college course and read only the

textbook instead of going to class.

\end{abstract}

course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class

discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is

not equivalent to attending the course.

\tableofcontents

\pagebreak

\mainmatter

\pagenumbering{arabic}

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

\chapter{Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab}

The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth.  Unlike licenses like

The GPL is a Free Software license with legal teeth. Unlike licenses like

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

designed to defend as well as grant freedom.  We saw in the last course

designed to defend as well as grant freedom. We saw in the last course

that GPL uses copyright law as a mechanism to grant all the key freedoms

essential in Free Software, but also to ensure that those freedoms

propagate throughout the distribution chain of the software.

...

@@ -134,75 +200,76 @@ Free Software is accomplished through various terms of GPL: \S 3 ensures

that binaries are always accompanied with source; \S 2 ensures that the

sources are adequate, complete and usable; \S 6 and \S 7 ensure that the

license of the software is always GPL for everyone, and that no other

legal agreements or licenses trump GPL.  It is \S 4, however, that ensures

legal agreements or licenses trump GPL. It is \S 4, however, that ensures

that the GPL can be enforced.

Thus, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement.  This

clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted.  As a copyright

Thus, \S 4 is where we begin our discussion of GPL enforcement. This

clause is where the legal teeth of the license are rooted. As a copyright

license, GPL governs only the activities governed by copyright law ---

copying, modifying and redistributing computer software.  Unlike most

copying, modifying and redistributing computer software. Unlike most

copyright licenses, GPL gives wide grants of permission for engaging with

these activities.  Such permissions continue and all parties may exercise

them until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@.  At the

these activities. Such permissions continue, and all parties may exercise

them until such time as one party violates the terms of GPL\@. At the

moment of such a violation (i.e., the engaging of copying, modifying or

redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL) \S 4 is invoked.  While other

redistributing in ways not permitted by GPL) \S 4 is invoked. While other

parties may continue to operate under GPL, the violating party loses their

rights.

Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators' rights to continue engaging

in the permissions that otherwise granted by GPL\@.  Effectively, their

permissions go back to the copyright defaults --- no permission is granted

to copy, modify, nor redistribute the work.  Meanwhile, \S 5 points out

that if if the violator has no rights under GPL --- as they will not once

they have violated it --- then they otherwise have no rights and are

prohibited by copyright law from engaging in the activities of copying,

modifying and distributing.

Specifically, \S 4 terminates the violators' rights to continue

engaging in the permissions that are otherwise granted by GPL\@.

Effectively, their rights revert to the copyright defaults ---

no permission is granted to copy, modify, nor redistribute the work.

Meanwhile, \S 5 points out that if the violator has no rights under

GPL, they are prohibited by copyright law from engaging in the

activities of copying, modifying and distributing. They have lost

these rights because they have violated the GPL, and no other license

gives them permission to engage in these activities governed by copyright law.

\section{Ongoing Violations}

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

final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a single,

solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.  Almost

always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy a GPL'd program,

either making modifications or not, and then began a ongoing activity of

distributing that work.  For example, the violator may have put the

software in boxes and sold them at stores.  Or perhaps the software was

put up for download on the Internet.  Regardless of the delivery

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

one final industry fact added to the mix: rarely, does one engage in a

single, solitary act of copying, distributing or modifying software.

Almost always, a violator will have legitimately acquired a copy of a

GPL'd program, either making modifications or not, and then begun

distributing that work. For example, the violator may have put the

software in boxes and sold them at stores. Or perhaps the software

was put up for download on the Internet. Regardless of the delivery

mechanism, violators almost always are engaged in {\em ongoing\/}

violation of GPL\@.

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

example, a user group who distributed copies of a GNU/Linux system without

source at one meeting --- we rarely pursue it with a high degree of

tenacity.  In our minds, such a violation is an educational problem, and

unless the user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, the

never do) we simply forward along an FAQ entry that best explains how user

groups can most easily comply with GPL, and send them on there merry way.

tenacity. In our minds, such a violation is an educational problem, and

unless the user group becomes a repeat offender (as it turns out, they

never do), we simply forward along a FAQ entry that best explains how user

groups can most easily comply with GPL, and send them on their merry way.

It is only the cases of {\em ongoing\/} GPL violation that warrant our

active attention.  We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds

active attention. We vehemently pursue those cases where dozens, hundreds

or thousands of customers are receiving software that is out of

compliance, and where the company continually puts for sale (or

compliance, and where the company continually offers for sale (or

distributes gratis as a demo) software distributions that include GPL'd

components out of compliance.  Our goal is to maximize the impact of

components out of compliance. Our goal is to maximize the impact of

enforcement and educate industries who are making such a mistake on a

large scale.

In addition, such ongoing violation shows that a particular company is

committed to a GPL'd product line.  We are thrilled to learn that someone

committed to a GPL'd product line. We are thrilled to learn that someone

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

have become confused about the rules of the road.  Rather than merely

become confused about the rules of the road. Rather than merely

giving us a post mortem to perform on a past mistake, an ongoing violation

gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor the GPL'd

gives us an active opportunity to educate a new contributor to the GPL'd

commons about proper procedures to contribute to the community.

Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up particular violation.

Our central goal is not, in fact, to merely clear up a particular violation.

In fact, over time, we hope that our compliance lab will be out of

business.  We seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce

business. We seek to educate the businesses that engage in commerce

related to GPL'd software to obey the rules of the road and allow them to

operate freely under them.  Just as a traffic officer would not revel in

operate freely under them. Just as a traffic officer would not revel in

reminding people which side of the road to drive on, so we do not revel in

violations.  By contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an

violations. By contrast, we revel in the successes of educating an

ongoing violator about GPL so that GPL compliance becomes a second-nature

matter, allowing that company to join the GPL ecosystem as a contributor.

...

@@ -210,23 +277,23 @@ matter, allowing that company to join the GPL ecosystem as a contributor.

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

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 almost always sent

appears to contain GPL'd software. These reports are almost always 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

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

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

Web site, 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 would use in examining the

software.

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

confirmed by simple commands.  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.  Thus, given the

confirmed by simple commands. 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. Thus, given the

third-party binary, {\tt tpb}, usually, a simple command (on a GNU/Linux

system) such as the following will find a Free Software copyright notice

and GPL reference:

...

@@ -237,39 +304,38 @@ 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

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

redress once \S 4 has been invoked --- lie 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 present.

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

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

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

copyrights and GPL\@.

\section{First Contact}

The Free Software community is built on a structure of voluntary

cooperation and mutual help.  Our community has learned that cooperation

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.

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.

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

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

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.

...

@@ -277,9 +343,9 @@ compliance work.

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

\chapter{Davrik: Modified GCC SDK}

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.

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

produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers

of consumer electronic devices.

\section{Facts}

...

@@ -289,63 +355,62 @@ 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

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

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 reporters, both of whom had used the SDK

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

professionally 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 Davrik's SDK was indeed a

derivative work of GCC\@.  Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number

derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number

of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and

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

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

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

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 included a number of source files copied from the GCC

code-base.

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 to discover that FSF's

analysis was correct. Davrik determined that LP included 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 the source

did not properly build.  FSF asked Davrik to provide better build

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

purchased the product that the source was now available by announcing

the availablity on its Web site and via a customer newsletter.

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

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:

granted by GPL\@. The following language was negotiated into 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

(``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

...

@@ -353,23 +418,23 @@ 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

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.

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

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

give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were

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.

Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed to take

responsibility 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 with Darvik's Compliance Officer.

\section{Lessons}

...

@@ -379,12 +444,12 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

\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

  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

  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 with GPL'd

    software}.  When users and customers of GPL'd products know their

    software}. 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

...

@@ -392,11 +457,11 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

\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

  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

  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 as smooth as

  possible.

...

@@ -404,10 +469,10 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

\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

  work. FSF is not the expert 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

  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

...

@@ -415,11 +480,11 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

\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 she has these rights\/}.  If a

  company's Web site --- 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 she has these rights\/}. If a

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

  actually discover that she had such rights.  Informing customers, in a

  actually discover that she has such rights. Informing customers, 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.

...

@@ -427,13 +492,13 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

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

  mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.}  The most

  difficult negotiation point of the Davrik case was drafting language

  that simultaneously protected the Davrik's patent rights outside of the

  that simultaneously protected 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

  GPL\@. As we discussed in the first course of 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

  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

...

@@ -445,78 +510,78 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.

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

In this case study, we consider a minor violation made by a company whose

knowledge of the Free Software community and it functions is deep.

knowledge of the Free Software community and its functions is deep.

\section{The Facts}

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 was brought to attention

again 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

primarily to OEM vendors to be placed in appliance devices 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 on a

  Slashdot\footnote{Slashdot is a popular news and discussion site for

  technical readers.} comment, and then it was brought to our attention again

  by another Free Software copyright holder who had discovered the

  same violation.

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

This allowed FSF engineers to directly download and confirm the

violation quickly. Two primary problems were discovered 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.

  available

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

  contradicted the permissions granted by GPL\@.

  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

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 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).

  ever they distributed that way)

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

  regarding proper GPL compliance, to help ensure that such oversights

  regarding source releases would not occur in the future.

  regarding proper GPL 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.

  formally restored Bracken's distribution rights

\end{itemize}

This case 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:

This case was completed in about a month. FSF approved the new EULA

text. The 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

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

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

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

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

...

@@ -530,7 +595,7 @@ completed as described.

\section{Lessons Learned}

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

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

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.

...

@@ -538,57 +603,57 @@ role in GPL compliance.

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

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

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

  built 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.  Since the culture inside the company had

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

  completely an honest mistake. Since the culture inside the company had

  already adapted to the cooperative style of resolution 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.  However, when the company --- and in particular, the

  lawyers, managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product

  lines --- have adapted to the cooperative Free Software culture,

  resolving such problems is merely a mundane detail of typical operation

  and resolution is reached quickly.

  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. However, resolution is

  reached quickly when the company --- and in particular, the lawyers,

  managers, and engineers working on the Free Software product lines

  --- have adapted to Free Software culture that the lower-level

  engineer already understood

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

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

  duty 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 if

  they distribute before rights are restored.  It is FSF's policy to

  they distribute before rights are restored. 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

  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 distribution did not, to FSF's

  the violation case was pending. From start to finish, it took less

  than a month to resolve. This lapse in distribution did not, to FSF's

  knowledge, impact Bracken's 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 clearly state that if there is a conflict

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

  overriding license.

\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 rights and

  permissions already granted by GPL\@. The EULA must clearly state

  that if there is a conflict between it and GPL, with regard to GPL'd

  code, 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

  cooperative approach 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.

...

@@ -603,10 +668,11 @@ 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 distributes a back-up 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 simply called 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

...

@@ -615,19 +681,19 @@ 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

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 original GNU tar sources, but kept the cryptographic

modifications proprietary.  They argued that the security of their system

modifications 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 first claim, pointing out that Vigorien 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

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.

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

...

@@ -636,8 +702,8 @@ 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

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.

...

@@ -645,13 +711,14 @@ did so, and the violation was resolved.

\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 requires.  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.

\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 requires. FSF offers the option to

  simply remove the GPL'd portions from the product and continue along

  without them. 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 is simply further evidence that the combined work in

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

...

@@ -660,8 +727,8 @@ did so, and the violation was resolved.

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

\item {\bf The whole product is not always covered.}  In this case,

  Vigorien had additional works aggregated.  The backup system was a suite

  of utilities, some of which were GPL and some of which were not.  While

  Vigorien had additional works aggregated. The backup system was a suite

  of utilities, some of which were GPL and some of which were not. While

  the cryptographic routines were tightly coupled with GNU tar and clearly

  derivative works, the various GUI utilities were separate and

  independent works merely aggregated with the distribution of the

...

@@ -672,28 +739,28 @@ did so, and the violation was resolved.

  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

  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

  No external argument for noncompliance 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

  cryptography in the ancient world --- 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

  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 grounded in 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

  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

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

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

\end{enumerate}

...

@@ -702,60 +769,60 @@ did so, and the violation was resolved.

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

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

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

that has 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

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

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

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; this fact had not been part of the disclosures made during

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

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

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

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

Polgara company. 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

FSF 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.

issues on behalf of 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

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

source, although the issue moved 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

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

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

problems (similar to 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.

a solution and are expected to resolve.

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

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

--- 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

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

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

FSF continues to negotiation with Thesulac and the Linux community

regarding the problem.

...

@@ -766,24 +833,24 @@ regarding the problem.

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

  more difficult.}  FSF has a strong policy never to publicize 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

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

  FSF sees no reason to publicly admonish violators who genuinely want 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

  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

  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

  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,

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

  one should include lists of GPL'd components contained in the products

  discussed.

...

@@ -791,43 +858,43 @@ regarding the problem.

  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

  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 so we may talk to them directly.  In

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

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

  point us to the upstream provider so we may talk to them directly. In

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

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

  regardless of Thesulac's response.

\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. 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

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

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

  from a marketing standpoint to educate their customers about using the

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

  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

  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

  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,

  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

  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.

...

@@ -841,10 +908,10 @@ 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}

\begin{itemize}

\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 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.

...

@@ -859,20 +926,20 @@ distribute products based on GPL'd software:

  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

  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;

  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

  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

  surely 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}

\end{itemize}

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

\end{document}

...

@@ -880,6 +947,9 @@ distribute products based on GPL'd software:

% LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs

% LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs

% LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc

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

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

% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce DVD

% LocalWords:  unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery Iqtel

% LocalWords:  impermissibly Bateman faire minimis Borland uncopyrightable Mgmt

% LocalWords:  franca downloadable Davrik Davrik's Darvik

% LocalWords:  Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara

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