Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

Choosing A License

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/26/choose.html

Brett
Smith of the FSF has announced
a new tutorial available on the GNU
website that
gives advice about picking a license for your project
.

I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to
. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.

For me, the particularly interesting outcome of the tutorial is how it
finishes a the turbulent trajectory of the FSF’s relationship with
Apache’s license. Initially, there was substantial acrimony between the
Apache Software Foundation and the FSF
because version 2.0
of the Apache License
is incompatible
with the GPLv2, a
point on
which the
Apache Software Foundation has long disagreed with the FSF
. You can
even
find cases
where I was opining in the press about this back when I was Executive
Director of the FSF
.

An important component of GPLv3
drafting
was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!

systemd Documentation

Post Syndicated from Lennart Poettering original https://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd-docs.html

Fedora 15 is out. Get it
while it is hot! It is probably the biggest distribution release of a all time
with being first in shipping both GNOME 3 and systemd.

Since this is the first distribution release based on systemd, it might be interesting to
read up on what it is all about. Here’s a little compilation of the available
documentation for systemd.

The Manual Pages

Here’s the full list of all man pages.

The Blog Stories

Some of the systemd for Administrators blog posts are available in Russian language, too.

Other Documentation

Fedora Documentation

In The Press

Other Distributions’ Documentation

And, if you still have questions after all of this, please join
our mailing list
, or our IRC channel #systemd on
irc.freenode.org. Alternatively, if you are looking for paid
consulting services for systemd contact our
friends at ProFUSION
.

What does the LastPass security breach mean?

Post Syndicated from David original http://devilsadvocatesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-does-lastpass-security-breach-mean.html

Most people in the security world – and many Internet users – have read over the past two weeks about the possible exposure of LastPass‘s password database. Since LastPass (which I’ve written about before) is a cloud password management tool, this was a major cause for concern, despite the fact that the passwords were salted – which would make them harder to figure out – many users still use poor passwords which could be easily retrieved.

The good news is that LastPass did a lot of things right, starting with their first blog post: “We noticed an issue yesterday and wanted to alert you to it. As a precaution, we’re also forcing you to change your master password.” They went on to explain why they were worried “we saw a network traffic anomaly for a few minutes from one of our non-critical machines” and “we found a similar but smaller matching traffic anomaly from one of our databases in the opposite direction (more traffic was sent from the database compared to what was received on the server)”.

They explained what this might mean: “We know roughly the amount of data transfered and that it’s big enough to have transfered people’s email addresses, the server salt and their salted password hashes from the database. We also know that the amount of data taken isn’t remotely enough to have pulled many users encrypted data blobs.”

Best of all, they then explained who might be in danger: “If you have a strong, non-dictionary based password or pass phrase, this shouldn’t impact you – the potential threat here is brute forcing your master password using dictionary words, then going to LastPass with that password to get your data. Unfortunately not everyone picks a master password that’s immune to brute forcing.”

They even note that they’re not sure that the whole thing is an actual issue – but that they want to do the right thing: “We realize this may be an overreaction and we apologize for the disruption this will cause, but we’d rather be paranoid and slightly inconvenience you than to be even more sorry later.”

Since then, LastPass has done a lot more things right and they’ve described it on their blog. They’ve done everything from providing frequent updates to trying to make sure that any future issues are handled properly. They’ve analyzed the mistakes they’ve made, and have acted to correct them, and have implemented a number of improvements to their infrastructure, design, and their overall processes.

Some of the things that I’m happiest to see are:

  • They have engaged 3rd party code reviewers and have committed to doing several reviews per year and sharing the results of the reviews.
  • They are soliciting community feedback at https://lastpass.com/support_security.php
  • They’ve split their infrastructure to keep back end systems away from their production service systems.
  • They’ve created a bastion host log server

To enterprise security folks, these will all look like normal best practices, and they are – but the fact that the folks at LastPass learned, and learned quickly is a great sign.

So, if you’re a LastPass user, should you be worried? The answer is…probably not. While storing passwords in the cloud has some innate security risk, their reaction to the event had all the things I would want to see, and their basic technology not only appears well founded, but it also continues to get better. For now, my recommendation remains the same: if you’re interested in cloud based password storage, LastPass is a good choice – and it appears that it will continue to improve. Regardless of what you use for password storage, a good master password is critical.

If you’re not comfortable with a solution like LastPass, Password Safe and similar solutions can still be kept in the cloud – you just need to keep a client handy to access them once you retrieve the encrypted file.

Plumbers Conference 2011

Post Syndicated from Lennart Poettering original https://0pointer.net/blog/projects/lpc2011.html

The Linux Plumbers
Conference 2011 in Santa Rosa, CA, USA
is coming nearer (Sep. 7-9).
Together with Kay Sievers I am running the Boot&Init track, and together with
Mark Brown the Audio track.

For both tracks we still need proposals. So if you haven’t submitted
anything yet, please consider doing so. And that quickly. i.e. if you can
arrange for it, last sunday would be best, since that was actually the final
deadline. However, the submission form is still open, so if you submit
something really, really quickly we’ll ignore the absence of time travel and the calendar for a bit. So, go,
submit something. Now.

What are we looking for? Well, here’s what I just posted on the audio
related mailing lists
:

So, please consider submitting something if you haven't done so yet. We
are looking for all kinds of technical talks covering everything audio
plumbing related: audio drivers, audio APIs, sound servers, pro audio,
consumer audio. If you can propose something audio related -- like talks
on media controller routing, on audio for ASOC/Embedded, submit
something! If you care for low-latency audio, submit something. If you
care about the Linux audio stack in general, submit something.

LPC is probably the most relevant technical conference on the general
Linux platform, so be sure that if you want your project, your work,
your ideas to be heard then this is the right forum for everything
related to the Linux stack. And the Audio track covers everything in our
Audio Stack, regardless whether it is pro or consumer audio.

And here’s what I posted to the init
related lists
:

So, please consider submitting something if you haven't done so yet. We
are looking for all kinds of technical talks covering everything from
the BIOS (i.e. CoreBoot and friends), over boot loaders (i.e. GRUB and
friends), to initramfs (i.e. Dracut and friends) and init systems
(i.e. systemd and friends). If you have something smart to say about any
of these areas or maybe about related tools (i.e. you wrote a fancy new
tool to measure boot performance) or fancy boot schemes in your
favourite Linux based OS (i.e. the new Meego zero second boot ;-)) then
don't hesitate to submit something on the LPC web site, in the Boot&Init
track!

And now, quickly, go to the
LPC website
and post your session proposal in the Audio resp. Boot&Init; track! Thank you!

Thanks

Post Syndicated from Lennart Poettering original https://0pointer.net/blog/projects/thanks.html

As some of you might know Fedora 15 went Gold a couple of days ago. The
first big distribution based on systemd will be released 2011-05-24. Mark the date!

In little over a year systemd went from nowhere to became a core piece of
Fedora. This wasn’t possible without the numerous folks who worked with us on
getting systemd right, supplied patches, chased bugs, tested releases and posted
comments and generally made sure everything was in shape for the big
release.

At this point we’d like to thank everybody who contributed and a few folks in
particular:

A. Costa
Adrian Spinu
Alexey Shabalin
Andreas Jaeger
Andrew Edmunds
Andrey Borzenkov
Bill Nottingham
Brandon Philips
Brendan Jones
Brett Witherspoon
Chris E Ferron
Christian Ruppert
Conrad Meyer
Daniel J Walsh
Dave Reisner
Eric Paris
Fabian Henze
Fabiano Fidêncio
Florian Kriener
Franz Dietrich
Greg Kroah-Hartman
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
Harald Hoyer
James Laska
Jan Engelhardt
Jeff Mahoney
Jesse Zhang
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
Karel Zak
Koen Kooi
Lucas De Marchi
Ludwig Nussel
Luis Felipe Strano Moraes
Maarten Lankhorst
Malcolm Studd
Marc-Antoine Perennou
Martin Mikkelsen
Matthew Miller
Matthias Clasen
Matthias Schiffer
Michael Biebl
Michael Olbrich
Michael Tremer
Michał Piotrowski
Michal Schmidt
Mike Kazantsev
Mike Kelly
Miklos Vajna
Milan Broz
Ozan Çağlayan
Paul Menzel
Pavol Rusnak
Rahul Sundaram
Rainer Gerhards
Ran Benita
Ray Strode
Robert Gerus
Sedat Dilek
Tero Roponen
Thierry Reding
Tollef Fog Heen
Tomasz Torcz
Tom Callaway
Tom Gundersen
Toshio Kuratomi
William Jon McCann
Wulf C. Krueger
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

And everybody else who I (or git shortlog) forgot.

Thank you!

Lennart and Kay

BTW, the interface stability promise is valid now.

Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/19/proffitt.html

I’m grateful
to Brian
Proffitt for clarifying some of these confusions about Android
licensing
. In particular, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has
cleared
up the confusions
that Edward J. Naughton keeps spreading regarding
the GPL.

I noted
that Naughton
even commented
on Proffitt’s article; the comment spreads even more confusion
about the GPL. In particular, Naughton claims that most BusyBox GPL
violations are on unmodified versions of BusyBox. That’s just
absolutely false, if for no other reason that a binary is a modified
version of the source code in the first place, and nearly all BusyBox
GPL violations involve a binary-only version distributed without any
source (nor an offer therefor).

Mixed in with Naughton’s constant confusions about what the GPL and
LGPL actually requires, he does have a possible valid point lurking:
there are a few components in Android/Linux that are under copyleft
licenses, namely Linux (GPL) and Webkit (LGPL). Yet, in all of
Naughton’s screeching about this issue, I haven’t seen any clear GPL or
LGPL violation reports — all I see is speculation about what may
or may not be a violation without any actual facts presented.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve spent more time reading and assessing the
veracity of GPL violation reports than anyone on the planet. I don’t
talk about this part of it much: but there are, in fact, a lot of false
alarms. I get emails every week from users who are confused about what
the GPL and LGPL actually require, and I typically must send them back
to collect more details before I can say with any certainty a GPL or
LGPL violation has occurred.

Of course, as a software freedom advocate, I’m deeply dismayed that
Google, Motorola and others haven’t seen fit to share a lot of the
Android code in a meaningful way with the community; failure to share
software is an affront to what the software freedom movement seeks to
accomplish. However, every reliable report that I’ve seen
indicates that there are no GPL nor LGPL violations present. Of course,
if someone has evidence to the contrary, they should send it to those of
us who do GPL enforcement. Meanwhile, despite Naughton’s public claims
that there are GPL and LGPL violations occurring, I’ve received no
contact from him. Don’t you think if he was really worried about
getting a GPL or LGPL violation resolved, he’d contact the guy in the
world most known for doing GPL enforcement and see if I could help?

Of course, Naughton hasn’t contacted me because he isn’t really
interested in software freedom. He’s interested in getting press for
himself, and writing vague reports about Android copyrights and
licensing is a way to get lots of press. I put out now a public call to
anyone who believes they haven’t received source code that they were
required to get under GPL or LGPL to get in touch with me and I’ll try
to help, or at the very least put you in touch with a copyright holder
who can help do some enforcement with you. I don’t, however, expect to
see a message in my inbox from Naughton any time soon, nor do I expect
him to actually write about the wide-spread
GPL violations
related to Android/Linux that Matthew Garrett has been finding.
Garrett’s findings
are the real story about Android/Linux
compliance, but it’s presumably not headline-getting enough for Naughton
to even care.

Finally, Naughton is a lawyer. He has the skills at hand to actually
help resolve GPL violations. If he really cared about GPL
violations, he’d offer his pro bono help to copyright holders to assist
in the overwhelming onslaught of GPL violations. I’ve written and
spoken frequently about how I and others who enforce the GPL are really
lacking in talented person-power to do more enforcement. Yet, again, I
haven’t received an offer from Naughton or these other lawyers who are
opining about GPL non-compliance to help me get some actual GPL
compliance done. I await their offers, but I’m certainly not expecting
they’ll be forthcoming.

(BTW, you’ll notice that I don’t link to Naughton’s actual article
myself; I don’t want to give him any more linkage than he’s already
gotten. I’m pretty aghast at the Huffington Post for
giving a far-reaching soapbox to such shoddy commentary, but I suppose that I
shouldn’t expect better from a company owned by AOL.)

Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/19/proffitt.html

I’m grateful
to Brian
Proffitt for clarifying some of these confusions about Android
licensing
. In particular, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has
cleared
up the confusions
that Edward J. Naughton keeps spreading regarding
the GPL.

I noted
that Naughton
even commented
on Proffitt’s article; the comment spreads even more confusion
about the GPL. In particular, Naughton claims that most BusyBox GPL
violations are on unmodified versions of BusyBox. That’s just
absolutely false, if for no other reason that a binary is a modified
version of the source code in the first place, and nearly all BusyBox
GPL violations involve a binary-only version distributed without any
source (nor an offer therefor).

Mixed in with Naughton’s constant confusions about what the GPL and
LGPL actually requires, he does have a possible valid point lurking:
there are a few components in Android/Linux that are under copyleft
licenses, namely Linux (GPL) and Webkit (LGPL). Yet, in all of
Naughton’s screeching about this issue, I haven’t seen any clear GPL or
LGPL violation reports — all I see is speculation about what may
or may not be a violation without any actual facts presented.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve spent more time reading and assessing the
veracity of GPL violation reports than anyone on the planet. I don’t
talk about this part of it much: but there are, in fact, a lot of false
alarms. I get emails every week from users who are confused about what
the GPL and LGPL actually require, and I typically must send them back
to collect more details before I can say with any certainty a GPL or
LGPL violation has occurred.

Of course, as a software freedom advocate, I’m deeply dismayed that
Google, Motorola and others haven’t seen fit to share a lot of the
Android code in a meaningful way with the community; failure to share
software is an affront to what the software freedom movement seeks to
accomplish. However, every reliable report that I’ve seen
indicates that there are no GPL nor LGPL violations present. Of course,
if someone has evidence to the contrary, they should send it to those of
us who do GPL enforcement. Meanwhile, despite Naughton’s public claims
that there are GPL and LGPL violations occurring, I’ve received no
contact from him. Don’t you think if he was really worried about
getting a GPL or LGPL violation resolved, he’d contact the guy in the
world most known for doing GPL enforcement and see if I could help?

Of course, Naughton hasn’t contacted me because he isn’t really
interested in software freedom. He’s interested in getting press for
himself, and writing vague reports about Android copyrights and
licensing is a way to get lots of press. I put out now a public call to
anyone who believes they haven’t received source code that they were
required to get under GPL or LGPL to get in touch with me and I’ll try
to help, or at the very least put you in touch with a copyright holder
who can help do some enforcement with you. I don’t, however, expect to
see a message in my inbox from Naughton any time soon, nor do I expect
him to actually write about the wide-spread
GPL violations
related to Android/Linux that Matthew Garrett has been finding.
Garrett’s findings
are the real story about Android/Linux
compliance, but it’s presumably not headline-getting enough for Naughton
to even care.

Finally, Naughton is a lawyer. He has the skills at hand to actually
help resolve GPL violations. If he really cared about GPL
violations, he’d offer his pro bono help to copyright holders to assist
in the overwhelming onslaught of GPL violations. I’ve written and
spoken frequently about how I and others who enforce the GPL are really
lacking in talented person-power to do more enforcement. Yet, again, I
haven’t received an offer from Naughton or these other lawyers who are
opining about GPL non-compliance to help me get some actual GPL
compliance done. I await their offers, but I’m certainly not expecting
they’ll be forthcoming.

(BTW, you’ll notice that I don’t link to Naughton’s actual article
myself; I don’t want to give him any more linkage than he’s already
gotten. I’m pretty aghast at the Huffington Post for
giving a far-reaching soapbox to such shoddy commentary, but I suppose that I
shouldn’t expect better from a company owned by AOL.)

Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/19/proffitt.html

I’m grateful
to Brian
Proffitt for clarifying some of these confusions about Android
licensing
. In particular, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has
cleared
up the confusions
that Edward J. Naughton keeps spreading regarding
the GPL.

I noted
that Naughton
even commented
on Proffitt’s article; the comment spreads even more confusion
about the GPL. In particular, Naughton claims that most BusyBox GPL
violations are on unmodified versions of BusyBox. That’s just
absolutely false, if for no other reason that a binary is a modified
version of the source code in the first place, and nearly all BusyBox
GPL violations involve a binary-only version distributed without any
source (nor an offer therefor).

Mixed in with Naughton’s constant confusions about what the GPL and
LGPL actually requires, he does have a possible valid point lurking:
there are a few components in Android/Linux that are under copyleft
licenses, namely Linux (GPL) and Webkit (LGPL). Yet, in all of
Naughton’s screeching about this issue, I haven’t seen any clear GPL or
LGPL violation reports — all I see is speculation about what may
or may not be a violation without any actual facts presented.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve spent more time reading and assessing the
veracity of GPL violation reports than anyone on the planet. I don’t
talk about this part of it much: but there are, in fact, a lot of false
alarms. I get emails every week from users who are confused about what
the GPL and LGPL actually require, and I typically must send them back
to collect more details before I can say with any certainty a GPL or
LGPL violation has occurred.

Of course, as a software freedom advocate, I’m deeply dismayed that
Google, Motorola and others haven’t seen fit to share a lot of the
Android code in a meaningful way with the community; failure to share
software is an affront to what the software freedom movement seeks to
accomplish. However, every reliable report that I’ve seen
indicates that there are no GPL nor LGPL violations present. Of course,
if someone has evidence to the contrary, they should send it to those of
us who do GPL enforcement. Meanwhile, despite Naughton’s public claims
that there are GPL and LGPL violations occurring, I’ve received no
contact from him. Don’t you think if he was really worried about
getting a GPL or LGPL violation resolved, he’d contact the guy in the
world most known for doing GPL enforcement and see if I could help?

Of course, Naughton hasn’t contacted me because he isn’t really
interested in software freedom. He’s interested in getting press for
himself, and writing vague reports about Android copyrights and
licensing is a way to get lots of press. I put out now a public call to
anyone who believes they haven’t received source code that they were
required to get under GPL or LGPL to get in touch with me and I’ll try
to help, or at the very least put you in touch with a copyright holder
who can help do some enforcement with you. I don’t, however, expect to
see a message in my inbox from Naughton any time soon, nor do I expect
him to actually write about the wide-spread
GPL violations
related to Android/Linux that Matthew Garrett has been finding.
Garrett’s findings
are the real story about Android/Linux
compliance, but it’s presumably not headline-getting enough for Naughton
to even care.

Finally, Naughton is a lawyer. He has the skills at hand to actually
help resolve GPL violations. If he really cared about GPL
violations, he’d offer his pro bono help to copyright holders to assist
in the overwhelming onslaught of GPL violations. I’ve written and
spoken frequently about how I and others who enforce the GPL are really
lacking in talented person-power to do more enforcement. Yet, again, I
haven’t received an offer from Naughton or these other lawyers who are
opining about GPL non-compliance to help me get some actual GPL
compliance done. I await their offers, but I’m certainly not expecting
they’ll be forthcoming.

(BTW, you’ll notice that I don’t link to Naughton’s actual article
myself; I don’t want to give him any more linkage than he’s already
gotten. I’m pretty aghast at the Huffington Post for
giving a far-reaching soapbox to such shoddy commentary, but I suppose that I
shouldn’t expect better from a company owned by AOL.)

Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/19/proffitt.html

I’m grateful
to Brian
Proffitt for clarifying some of these confusions about Android
licensing
. In particular, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has
cleared
up the confusions
that Edward J. Naughton keeps spreading regarding
the GPL.

I noted
that Naughton
even commented
on Proffitt’s article; the comment spreads even more confusion
about the GPL. In particular, Naughton claims that most BusyBox GPL
violations are on unmodified versions of BusyBox. That’s just
absolutely false, if for no other reason that a binary is a modified
version of the source code in the first place, and nearly all BusyBox
GPL violations involve a binary-only version distributed without any
source (nor an offer therefor).

Mixed in with Naughton’s constant confusions about what the GPL and
LGPL actually requires, he does have a possible valid point lurking:
there are a few components in Android/Linux that are under copyleft
licenses, namely Linux (GPL) and Webkit (LGPL). Yet, in all of
Naughton’s screeching about this issue, I haven’t seen any clear GPL or
LGPL violation reports — all I see is speculation about what may
or may not be a violation without any actual facts presented.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve spent more time reading and assessing the
veracity of GPL violation reports than anyone on the planet. I don’t
talk about this part of it much: but there are, in fact, a lot of false
alarms. I get emails every week from users who are confused about what
the GPL and LGPL actually require, and I typically must send them back
to collect more details before I can say with any certainty a GPL or
LGPL violation has occurred.

Of course, as a software freedom advocate, I’m deeply dismayed that
Google, Motorola and others haven’t seen fit to share a lot of the
Android code in a meaningful way with the community; failure to share
software is an affront to what the software freedom movement seeks to
accomplish. However, every reliable report that I’ve seen
indicates that there are no GPL nor LGPL violations present. Of course,
if someone has evidence to the contrary, they should send it to those of
us who do GPL enforcement. Meanwhile, despite Naughton’s public claims
that there are GPL and LGPL violations occurring, I’ve received no
contact from him. Don’t you think if he was really worried about
getting a GPL or LGPL violation resolved, he’d contact the guy in the
world most known for doing GPL enforcement and see if I could help?

Of course, Naughton hasn’t contacted me because he isn’t really
interested in software freedom. He’s interested in getting press for
himself, and writing vague reports about Android copyrights and
licensing is a way to get lots of press. I put out now a public call to
anyone who believes they haven’t received source code that they were
required to get under GPL or LGPL to get in touch with me and I’ll try
to help, or at the very least put you in touch with a copyright holder
who can help do some enforcement with you. I don’t, however, expect to
see a message in my inbox from Naughton any time soon, nor do I expect
him to actually write about the wide-spread
GPL violations
related to Android/Linux that Matthew Garrett has been finding.
Garrett’s findings
are the real story about Android/Linux
compliance, but it’s presumably not headline-getting enough for Naughton
to even care.

Finally, Naughton is a lawyer. He has the skills at hand to actually
help resolve GPL violations. If he really cared about GPL
violations, he’d offer his pro bono help to copyright holders to assist
in the overwhelming onslaught of GPL violations. I’ve written and
spoken frequently about how I and others who enforce the GPL are really
lacking in talented person-power to do more enforcement. Yet, again, I
haven’t received an offer from Naughton or these other lawyers who are
opining about GPL non-compliance to help me get some actual GPL
compliance done. I await their offers, but I’m certainly not expecting
they’ll be forthcoming.

(BTW, you’ll notice that I don’t link to Naughton’s actual article
myself; I don’t want to give him any more linkage than he’s already
gotten. I’m pretty aghast at the Huffington Post for
giving a far-reaching soapbox to such shoddy commentary, but I suppose that I
shouldn’t expect better from a company owned by AOL.)

The collective thoughts of the interwebz