[HWR_14]

> If the GPL was not followed, the person who wrote the code could optionally take action. This actually works out pretty well, because folks who actually code tend NOT to file frivioulus type legal cases

That never made sense to me. AFAIK, in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages. If all the SF Conservancy wants is the ability to sue violators, why aren't they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project. Then, they can have standing to sue. Of course, it doesn't give them standing to license everyone else's code, but if they want to sue it works.

[onphonenow]

The SFC / related entities have worked with GPL developers to sue. All they need is a developer to let them act as their lawyer (for free).

This is what is remarkable. The SFC is so toxic in the open source developer community that despite their being a ton of a developers, not that many want to jump on the SFC train. So yes, this makes it hard for them.

Linus joked the title of a talk should be:

"Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects".

So an approach for SFC might be to write code and start contributing. One challenge they might face is that a) they can't write code and/or b) getting developers to write for them that can do meaningful work may be difficult given their reputation and c) open source projects might choose not to accept their code because they know they'd be getting in bed with the SFC.

Realize the SFC views are very left field. They are now arguing in the Vizio case that the GPL is not a copyright license but some kind of contract with users. This is so backwards its crazy.

One solution, they write some very cool software everyone WANTS to use, then they could sue everyone. Downside, folks might stop using their software.

Developers have sued - that's mostly been fine I think. Harald Welte did a lot for the GPL. I liked most of his cases. He kept it focused on GPL license being available, and source code being available. He even won cases where links to source code in documentation were not allowed which was an interesting twist. But fundamentally his litigation followed Linus's and many other developers views, I give you my code, you give me yours, we are square. He did over 100 cases, and was successful every time that I know of.

I think the SFC is going to be on much thinner ground with their Vizio case but we will see.

[not2b]

They want violators to stop being violators and comply, by releasing source code when they fork a GPLed work.

[HWR_14]

Yes. And I want world peace. The question was not "what do these people want" but "who does what to make it happen".

[not2b]

They use legal action as a tool to make that happen; in many cases you never hear about it because the company quietly settles and releases source code.

[HWR_14]

So, way to dodge the question.

What I asked was " in many GPL projects there are numerous copyright holders. Therefore, who is going to be the one to sue over the issues and optional seek damages"

You responded with "they".

That's not addressing my point, which is asking about which actor is taking action, why they are and not another actor, etc.

Like, is someone who contributed 3 lines of code 7 years ago going to be actively suing people?

[onphonenow]

Yes, they could if they care too. Folks have done this with (relatively) small contributions.

Most companies are willing to share their code as GPL requires when asked.

What they aren't willing to do is provide authorization keys etc to hardware etc as they don't feel GPLv2 requires that. Because most GPLv2 devs ALSO don't think GPLv2 requires that not a lot of litigation there.

My guess is that if SFC does get a smaller kernel contributor to assign copyright the kernel devs may try and remove their contribution.

[im3w1l]

GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. Fundamentally it sits on top of copyright. It can never be stronger than that foundation. If you are using a few lines of code without a valid license thats a copyright breach. And you can be sued. But for what amount? How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.

[mistrial9]

> How large damages can you claim for the illicit use of a few lines? Not a lot, likely.

no one asked that question. GPL source code include some of the largest and most used software systems today.

[im3w1l]

Maybe I misunderstand the legal situation here, but if "they paying someone to develop a few lines to the Linux kernel and every other project", then they would only have standing to sue regarding those specific lines right? Unless they can get other contributors on board.

[HWR_14]

Standard IANAL, but I have to deal with copyright issues sometimes.

Yes, they would only have standing to sue based on those lines and any lines based on them as a derivative work. I'd imagine that if they showed they were good custodians of suing people (making it easy to get back in compliance as opposed to trying to milk people of money) they could get people to join them on a case-by-case basis.

Even without that, they don't have to prove the value of the code that was used. You can sue for copyright infringement based on a standard damage instead, which is assumed to be 10k-250k per violation.