FSF, SFC, and the SFLC

Date: 2017-11-14 03:43 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
When will the FSF deal honestly with the so-called "GPLv2 Death Penalty"?

We all know that the German courts (in Welte vs. Sitecom; 2004) ruled quite clearly that the license offer is *always* available to everyone ... including former license violators. Why doesn't/didn't the FSF discuss this aspect of the decision when they hailed the verdict as a vindication of the GPL? My answer: The FSF is dishonest. If we can't trust the FSF to be open about something as obvious as this, what else are they hiding?

Instead the FSF continues to push the GPLv3 and assert that the enforcement component (Section 8) is more forgiving that the enforcement component of the GPLv2 (Section 4). To be clear: In terms of "copyright violation" it is more forgiving ... but in terms of "permanent revocation of license" it is not. IMO they can provide their view ... but if they provide that view without discussing actual relevant rulings that contradict that view, they are dishonest.

I've brought this up to you before two years ago (/u/redrumsir on reddit) and had hoped that, as a member of the board, you would at least bring this up and we would see a clarification in a FAQ somewhere.
Identity URL: 
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags