Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/06/23/proprietary-software-sexism-too.html

I generally try to
avoid schadenfreude,
but I couldn’t resist here, because I think it proves a point that the
problem of sexism in the software industry isn’t confined to the Free
Software community.

With my colleague Karen Sandler I’ve
talked on our Free as in Freedom
audcast. a
few different
shows about problems of sexism in the Free Software community. I’ve
long maintained
and written
in a blog post that the sexism problem is computer-industry-wide,
not just in Free Software.

In catching up on the weeks’ tech news this morning (I’m often too busy
during the week to stay on top of things), I read a
few stories
about
Microsoft’s
party
presentation
at
the
Norwegian
Developers’
Conference,
and watched the video.

It’s tempting to link this issue to Microsoft’s proprietary nature.
Fact is, I’ve seen sexist things happen as part of formal presentations
at a dozen different Open Source and Free Software events over the last
ten years. I link to all this not to single out Microsoft, but to point
out the entire computing industry — not just the Free Software
community — have serious problems of embedded sexism in our
communities that needs active attention.

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/cannotbesheathed/

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/seduction/

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/bunting/

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/05/29/compliance.html

As most readers might have guessed, my work
at Software Freedom Conservancy
has been so demanding in the last few months that I’ve been unable to
blog, although I have kept up (along with my
co-host Karen Sandler) releasing new
episodes of the Free as in
Freedom oggcast.

Today, Karen and I released
a special episode of
FaiF (which is merely special because it was released during a
week that we don’t normally release a show). In it, Karen and I
discuss in
detail Conservancy’s
announcement today of its new coordinated compliance program that
includes many copyright holders and projects.

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.

I’m looking forward in my day job to working collaboratively with
copyright holders of many different projects to uphold the rights
guaranteed by GPL. I’m also elated at the broad showing of support by
other Conservancy projects. In addition to the primary group in the
announcement (i.e., copyright holders in BusyBox, Samba and Linux), a
total of seven other GPL’d
and/or LGPL‘d
projects have chosen Conservancy to handle compliance efforts. It’s
clear that Conservancy’s compliance efforts are widely supported by many
projects.

The funniest part about all this, though, is that while there has been
no end of discussion of Conservancy’s and other’s compliance efforts
this year, most Free Software users never actually have to deal with
the details of compliance. Requirements of most copyleft licenses like
GPL generally trigger on distribution of the software —
particularly distribution of binaries. Since most users simply receive
distribution of binaries, and run them locally on their own computer,
rarely do they face complex issues of compliance. As the GPLv2
says, The act of running the Program is not restricted.