Chatham House Rules Waiver

I hereby waive the Chatham House Rule for this talk

This obviously only applies to what I say and not any questions / comments by others

Intro: Harald Welte

  • Developer, as technical as it gets

    • [system level] software development

    • [digital] electronics engineering

  • autodidact [never went to university]

  • developing Free / Open Source Software since late 1990s

  • 1999-2008: mostly working on Linux

  • 2008-present: mostly working on FOSS in telecommunications

  • not a lawyer!

History: The [real] Dark Ages

  • Early middle ages between roman empire and renaissance

  • approximately 5th .. 10th century in Europe

  • time of intellectual darkness (ignorance and error)

Historical Context

  • GPL first established in 1989

  • Linux first released in 1991

  • GPLv2 applied to Linux in 1992

  • 15-year old Harald starts using Linux in 1994

  • shortly thereafter: Deploying Linux based systems at schools and other places, first as a volunteer, later professionally

  • 20-year old Harald starts hacking on Linux in 1999

[License Compliance] Early Dark Ages

  • Around 2000: Many companies are deploying GNU/Linux systems

  • 2002: Linux based WiFi routers appear on the market (Linksys WRT54G)

  • 2003: netfilter/iptables project starts GPL enforcement

  • 2004: gpl-violations.org project starts as more embedded devices use Linux without license compliance

Typical situation with 2004 embedded Linux product

  • no copy of the license[s] passed along with product

  • no source code passed along with product

  • no source code provided along with software updates

  • no written offer on how to obtain source code

So, basically, 100% non-compliant

GPL enforcement 20 years ago

Typical sequence of events:

  • obtain test-purchase of a product

  • reverse engineering to obtain proof that the product contains Linux

  • verification that no source code nor written offer is included

  • send a warning letter, requesting source code + declaration to cease + desist

  • verify completeness, if company responds

  • apply for preliminary injunction, if deadline expires without cease + desist

Reasons for our GPL enforcement back then

  • clarify legal situation for everyone

  • put an end to industry claims about GPL not being possible to enforce

  • Get our hands on the sources (example: For OpenWRT or other alternative software

  • make everyone aware that FOSS licenses do have obligations

If the police never did speed checks, nobody would respect the speed limit!

Industry response over 20 years

  • establish processes

  • look at supply chain (SPDX, SBOM, …​)

  • develop tooling

  • mostly driven by requirements of customers towards their suppliers

[Some] Embedded Linux products 20 years later

  • copy of license[s] passed along with product

    • even if the product contains no code under that license [license text carpet bombing]

  • written offer is passed along with product + firmware update

  • source code possibly not provided upon inquiry

  • source code possibly not complete + corresponding

Embedded Linux scenario

  • We’ve seen 20 years of improved processes

  • Processes focused on compliance "on paper"

  • Those processes lead to real compliance at times

  • Still noticeable number of non-compliant embedded Linux products :(

    • some of those even in the same market as Linksys > 20 years ago :(

Compliance on paper vs what upstream FOSS projects want

  • upstream FOSS projects want [modified] source code

    • to be able to integrate fixes / extensions

    • to enable end users to run [possibly their own modified] versions

  • GPL is a legal hack trying to approximate what goal via copyright

  • upstream FOSS projects usually not interested in exact to-the-letter compliance, as long as complete corresponding source code is made available

Summary

  • license compliance is important

  • please don’t focus only on process / checklists / on-paper compliance

  • keep in mind the purpose of license compliance

  • GPL compliance situation is still far from perfect

Please think of the developer, not [just] the bureaucrat!

Thanks

  • to Armijn Hemel for his help

  • to Dr. Till Jaeger and his team at JBB for legal support

  • to everyone else supportive in the community

  • to the Open Compliance Summit team for inviting me

Questions

Questions? Comments?

You can reach me * here at the Open Compliance Summit * by e-mail at laforge@gnumonks.org

EOF

End of File