Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Linux

SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects 104

An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the Software Freedom Conservancy is expanding its GPL compliance efforts. Quoting Bradley Kuhn: "This new program is an outgrowth of the debate that happened over the last few months regarding Conservancy's GPL compliance efforts. Specifically, I noticed that, buried in the FUD over the last four months regarding GPL compliance, there was one key criticism that was valid and couldn't be ignored: Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems. Linux is a central component of such work, and the BusyBox developers agreed wholeheartedly that having some Linux developers involved with compliance would be very helpful. Conservancy has addressed this issue by building a broad coalition of copyright holders in many different projects who seek to work on compliance with Conservancy, including not just Linux and BusyBox, but other projects as well." The anonymous reader adds: "This news was also discussed in the latest episode of the Free as in Freedom Oggcast." Update: 05/30 14:20 GMT by U L: It may not be entirely clear, but several Linux developers have assigned copyright so that the Conservancy can pursue violations for them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects

Comments Filter:
  • by bug1 ( 96678 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @10:15AM (#40154815)

    "It is thanks to the SFLC that companies are afraid to use GPL code in their products... they think, quite reasonably, that it just isn't worth the hassle. Which is better, buy a licence for non-free software (fixed, one off cost) or use free software and pay for lawyers to be sure you are in compliance?"

    Its better to use free software and pay for lawyers, because;
      - You get the source code.
      - You _should_ have a lawyer review non-free software licences also, so its not an extra cost.

    If corporations are afraid to use GPL software because they are terrified they might have to _share_ something then there are little or no benefits to the Free software community from them being involved.

    i.e. The invisible hand will slap down such corporations.

  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @10:21AM (#40154869)

    IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.

  • by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @11:13AM (#40155419)

    But nonetheless it is hypocritical for someone at Sony, a company whose executives start frothing at the mouth when they get wind of someone violating their copyrights, to lead an effort to make it easier for others to violate GPL licenses and get away with it. It's good for them but not for you.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...