[wyldfire]

> The cure rights offer additional comfort that users of GPLv2 code have reasonable assurances of quiet use of that code, even if there is a temporary license noncompliance due to ambiguity, misunderstanding or otherwise. We also believe that community adoption of these rights will reduce the opportunity for copyright trolling.

It's hard to understand the problem being solved here. While I've heard of "patent trolling" I guess I've only thought of copyright trolling in the sense of the (poorly tested) automatons who issue DMCA takedown requests for audio/video on youtube.

I've heard about GPL enforcement but only in "good" context: copyright holders acting in good faith to get their licensees to comply with the license. Are there copyright holders engaging in abusive litigation?

[Ajedi32]

Probably a response to this incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16562525

[crankylinuxuser]

And pray tell me what Oracle, Microsoft, and the friends in the BSA do if you're caught violating the terms of the license?

Do they kindly ask for apology? Do they offer, at cost, to make their licenses good? Are they a good steward when they find license mishaps? Or, why should Free Software foundations accept this against companies making decisions to cheat all of us?

[LukeShu]

The licenses used by Oracle, Microsoft, and friends are there to protect the monetary interests of Oracle, Microsoft, and friends. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license good, conditioned on you serving their monetary interest.

The licenses used by the FSF are there to protect the liberty of users. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license good, conditioned on you restoring the users' liberty.

[crankylinuxuser]

Yes, and the liberty of the users (read: the price the developers would be if having to replace the violated code) is worth that much.

How much is a team of developers for a month? So yeah, that's real money and time.

[bonzini]

They don't do free software. FSF and Conservancy are trying to keep the moral high ground.

[crankylinuxuser]

I will concede that point for one class of violators.

There's from what I see, 2 groups of GPL (and related) license violators. The first are unintentional ones. They didn't realize, for one reason or another, the ramifications of the GPL. Or, they just don't have a license but it's on Git(Hub/Lab). These people, if it is mentioned to, will fix it.

You have the second group, that sells corporate, closed source hardware, with closed source linux kernel and associated GPL'ed tools. These care not for licenses, and would violate anything and everything for a nickel. They are bad actors, willing to do anything to disadvantage any suckers. Look no further than pretty much every Android phone vendor, Orange Pi, Banana Pi, and lots others.

Intent is 90% of the law. I'm certainly willing to let the 10% drop (the action), but its clear whom is and isn't well meaning and who is a bad actor. Making a pile of money and intentionally breaking the license and copyright is usually a pretty strong indicator.

[bonzini]

You only have 60 days to be compliant for your license to be reinstated. The ilks of Allwinner have failed to comply for years, and are outside the scope of the "GPLv2 safeguard" that's the topic here.

[sametmax]

The problem with moral is that it's in the eye of the beholder. While legal is described very clearly on paper.

And how is it moral to be nice with immoral people ?

Now I do believe it's good to let a chance to do the right thing. But if not, it must be followed by actions.

E.G: I would add to the licence that it is illegal to give technical support or to provide a commercial service related to the product with a violated licence, for all the product with the same licence. If you can't get support for any of your linux servers, or you can't even rent a new VPS, you'll think twice about compliance.

[toyg]

> Are there copyright holders engaging in abusive litigation?

Some enforcement efforts have been controversial, particularly the VmWare suit and other efforts by SFConservancy. I wouldn't call them trolls, but a lot of people think they are too heavy-handed.

On the other hand, with nobody wielding a stick, there is no real incentive not to abuse free licenses - which is exactly why the GPL exists in the first place.

[LukeShu]

The SF Conservancy has always done exactly what CA/Cisco/HPE/Microsoft/SAP/SUSE are now pledging to do. It's part of their Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement.

Whether or not you think they are too heavy-handed, or think they are trolls: SF Conservancy-like behavior isn't the type of behavior being addressed here.

[throwaway2048]

How are they too heavily handed? the only thing they ask for in negotiation and lawsuits is GPL compliance, they dont demand money, or anything else.

If following the license is too much to ask for, what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean?

[kuschku]

> If following the license is too much to ask for, what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean?

The "enforcement" that Torvalds wants is what you see with Android today: Everyone ships blobs of kernel builds, with the source never released.

[crankylinuxuser]

And that shit needs to stop now.

If I want to bloody recompile the LK on my phone to install a proper linux, that or other GPL tools shouldn't be blockers.

[anon1385]

> they dont demand money

A linux developer demanding money from GPL violators is (seemingly) what triggered this action. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-beats-internal-legal-thre...

>McHardy has sued companies for Linux GPLv2 violations in over 38 cases. In one, he'd requested a contractual penalty of €1.8 million. The company also claimed McHardy had already received over €2 million from his actions.

>what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean

It means not permanently revoking their licence to use the code again, even once they have become compliant. It's a common complaint made about the GPLv2 which was clarified in GPLv3

[throwaway2048]

The poster i was replying to was talking about SFC, not that case.