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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

systemd for Developers I

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

systemd
not only brings improvements for administrators and users, it also
brings a (small) number of new APIs with it. In this blog story (which might
become the first of a series) I hope to shed some light on one of the
most important new APIs in systemd:

Socket Activation

In the original blog
story about systemd
I tried to explain why socket activation is a
wonderful technology to spawn services. Let’s reiterate the background
here a bit.

The basic idea of socket activation is not new. The inetd
superserver was a standard component of most Linux and Unix systems
since time began: instead of spawning all local Internet services
already at boot, the superserver would listen on behalf of the
services and whenever a connection would come in an instance of the
respective service would be spawned. This allowed relatively weak
machines with few resources to offer a big variety of services at the
same time. However it quickly got a reputation for being somewhat
slow: since daemons would be spawned for each incoming connection a
lot of time was spent on forking and initialization of the services
— once for each connection, instead of once for them all.

Spawning one instance per connection was how inetd was primarily
used, even though inetd actually understood another mode: on the first
incoming connection it would notice this via poll() (or
select()) and spawn a single instance for all future
connections. (This was controllable with the
wait/nowait options.) That way the first connection
would be slow to set up, but subsequent ones would be as fast as with
a standalone service. In this mode inetd would work in a true
on-demand mode: a service would be made available lazily when it was
required.

inetd’s focus was clearly on AF_INET (i.e. Internet) sockets. As
time progressed and Linux/Unix left the server niche and became
increasingly relevant on desktops, mobile and embedded environments
inetd was somehow lost in the troubles of time. Its reputation for
being slow, and the fact that Linux’ focus shifted away from only
Internet servers made a Linux machine running inetd (or one of its newer
implementations, like xinetd) the exception, not the rule.

When Apple engineers worked on optimizing the MacOS boot time they
found a new way to make use of the idea of socket activation: they
shifted the focus away from AF_INET sockets towards AF_UNIX
sockets. And they noticed that on-demand socket activation was only
part of the story: much more powerful is socket activation when used
for all local services including those which need to be started
anyway on boot. They implemented these ideas in launchd, a central building
block of modern MacOS X systems, and probably the main reason why
MacOS is so fast booting up.

But, before we continue, let’s have a closer look what the benefits
of socket activation for non-on-demand, non-Internet services in
detail are. Consider the four services Syslog, D-Bus, Avahi and the
Bluetooth daemon. D-Bus logs to Syslog, hence on traditional Linux
systems it would get started after Syslog. Similarly, Avahi requires
Syslog and D-Bus, hence would get started after both. Finally
Bluetooth is similar to Avahi and also requires Syslog and D-Bus but
does not interface at all with Avahi. Sinceoin a traditional
SysV-based system only one service can be in the process of getting
started at a time, the following serialization of startup would take
place: Syslog → D-Bus → Avahi → Bluetooth (Of course, Avahi and
Bluetooth could be started in the opposite order too, but we have to
pick one here, so let’s simply go alphabetically.). To illustrate
this, here’s a plot showing the order of startup beginning with system
startup (at the top).

Parallelization plot

Certain distributions tried to improve this strictly serialized
start-up: since Avahi and Bluetooth are independent from each other,
they can be started simultaneously. The parallelization is increased,
the overall startup time slightly smaller. (This is visualized in the
middle part of the plot.)

Socket activation makes it possible to start all four services
completely simultaneously, without any kind of ordering. Since the
creation of the listening sockets is moved outside of the daemons
themselves we can start them all at the same time, and they are able
to connect to each other’s sockets right-away. I.e. in a single step
the /dev/log and /run/dbus/system_bus_socket sockets
are created, and in the next step all four services are spawned
simultaneously. When D-Bus then wants to log to syslog, it just writes
its messages to /dev/log. As long as the socket buffer does
not run full it can go on immediately with what else it wants to do
for initialization. As soon as the syslog service catches up it will
process the queued messages. And if the socket buffer runs full then
the client logging will temporarily block until the socket is writable
again, and continue the moment it can write its log messages. That
means the scheduling of our services is entirely done by the kernel:
from the userspace perspective all services are run at the same time,
and when one service cannot keep up the others needing it will
temporarily block on their request but go on as soon as these
requests are dispatched. All of this is completely automatic and
invisible to userspace. Socket activation hence allows us to
drastically parallelize start-up, enabling simultaneous start-up of
services which previously were thought to strictly require
serialization. Most Linux services use sockets as communication
channel. Socket activation allows starting of clients and servers of
these channels at the same time.

But it’s not just about parallelization. It offers a number of
other benefits:

  • We no longer need to configure dependencies explicitly. Since the
    sockets are initialized before all services they are simply available,
    and no userspace ordering of service start-up needs to take place
    anymore. Socket activation hence drastically simplifies configuration
    and development of services.
  • If a service dies its listening socket stays around, not losing a
    single message. After a restart of the crashed service it can continue
    right where it left off.
  • If a service is upgraded we can restart the service while keeping
    around its sockets, thus ensuring the service is continously
    responsive. Not a single connection is lost during the upgrade.
  • We can even replace a service during runtime in a way that is
    invisible to the client. For example, all systems running systemd
    start up with a tiny syslog daemon at boot which passes all log
    messages written to /dev/log on to the kernel message
    buffer. That way we provide reliable userspace logging starting from
    the first instant of boot-up. Then, when the actual rsyslog daemon is
    ready to start we terminate the mini daemon and replace it with the
    real daemon. And all that while keeping around the original logging
    socket and sharing it between the two daemons and not losing a single
    message. Since rsyslog flushes the kernel log buffer to disk after
    start-up all log messages from the kernel, from early-boot and from
    runtime end up on disk.

For another explanation of this idea consult the original blog
story about systemd
.

Socket activation has been available in systemd since its
inception. On Fedora 15 a number of services have been modified to
implement socket activation, including Avahi, D-Bus and rsyslog (to continue with the example above).

systemd’s socket activation is quite comprehensive. Not only classic
sockets are support but related technologies as well:

  • AF_UNIX sockets, in the flavours SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET; both in the filesystem and in the abstract namespace
  • AF_INET sockets, i.e. TCP/IP and UDP/IP; both IPv4 and IPv6
  • Unix named pipes/FIFOs in the filesystem
  • AF_NETLINK sockets, to subscribe to certain kernel features. This
    is currently used by udev, but could be useful for other
    netlink-related services too, such as audit.
  • Certain special files like /proc/kmsg or device nodes like /dev/input/*.
  • POSIX Message Queues

A service capable of socket activation must be able to receive its
preinitialized sockets from systemd, instead of creating them
internally. For most services this requires (minimal)
patching. However, since systemd actually provides inetd compatibility
a service working with inetd will also work with systemd — which is
quite useful for services like sshd for example.

So much about the background of socket activation, let’s now have a
look how to patch a service to make it socket activatable. Let’s start
with a theoretic service foobard. (In a later blog post we’ll focus on
real-life example.)

Our little (theoretic) service includes code like the following for
creating sockets (most services include code like this in one way or
another):

/* Source Code Example #1: ORIGINAL, NOT SOCKET-ACTIVATABLE SERVICE */
...
union {
        struct sockaddr sa;
        struct sockaddr_un un;
} sa;
int fd;

fd = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
if (fd < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "socket(): %m\n");
        exit(1);
}

memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
sa.un.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
strncpy(sa.un.sun_path, "/run/foobar.sk", sizeof(sa.un.sun_path));

if (bind(fd, &sa.sa, sizeof(sa)) < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "bind(): %m\n");
        exit(1);
}

if (listen(fd, SOMAXCONN) < 0) {
        fprintf(stderr, "listen(): %m\n");
        exit(1);
}
...

A socket activatable service may use the following code instead:

/* Source Code Example #2: UPDATED, SOCKET-ACTIVATABLE SERVICE */
...
#include "sd-daemon.h"
...
int fd;

if (sd_listen_fds(0) != 1) {
        fprintf(stderr, "No or too many file descriptors received.\n");
        exit(1);
}

fd = SD_LISTEN_FDS_START + 0;
...

systemd might pass you more than one socket (based on
configuration, see below). In this example we are interested in one
only. sd_listen_fds()
returns how many file descriptors are passed. We simply compare that
with 1, and fail if we got more or less. The file descriptors systemd
passes to us are inherited one after the other beginning with fd
#3. (SD_LISTEN_FDS_START is a macro defined to 3). Our code hence just
takes possession of fd #3.

As you can see this code is actually much shorter than the
original. This of course comes at the price that our little service
with this change will no longer work in a non-socket-activation
environment. With minimal changes we can adapt our example to work nicely
both with and without socket activation:

/* Source Code Example #3: UPDATED, SOCKET-ACTIVATABLE SERVICE WITH COMPATIBILITY */
...
#include "sd-daemon.h"
...
int fd, n;

n = sd_listen_fds(0);
if (n > 1) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Too many file descriptors received.\n");
        exit(1);
} else if (n == 1)
        fd = SD_LISTEN_FDS_START + 0;
else {
        union {
                struct sockaddr sa;
                struct sockaddr_un un;
        } sa;

        fd = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
        if (fd < 0) {
                fprintf(stderr, "socket(): %m\n");
                exit(1);
        }

        memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
        sa.un.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
        strncpy(sa.un.sun_path, "/run/foobar.sk", sizeof(sa.un.sun_path));

        if (bind(fd, &sa.sa, sizeof(sa)) < 0) {
                fprintf(stderr, "bind(): %m\n");
                exit(1);
        }

        if (listen(fd, SOMAXCONN) < 0) {
                fprintf(stderr, "listen(): %m\n");
                exit(1);
        }
}
...

With this simple change our service can now make use of socket
activation but still works unmodified in classic environments. Now,
let’s see how we can enable this service in systemd. For this we have
to write two systemd unit files: one describing the socket, the other
describing the service. First, here’s foobar.socket:

[Socket]
ListenStream=/run/foobar.sk

[Install]
WantedBy=sockets.target

And here’s the matching service file foobar.service:

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/bin/foobard

If we place these two files in /etc/systemd/system we can
enable and start them:

# systemctl enable foobar.socket
# systemctl start foobar.socket

Now our little socket is listening, but our service not running
yet. If we now connect to /run/foobar.sk the service will be
automatically spawned, for on-demand service start-up. With a
modification of foobar.service we can start our service
already at startup, thus using socket activation only for
parallelization purposes, not for on-demand auto-spawning anymore:

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/bin/foobard

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

And now let’s enable this too:

# systemctl enable foobar.service
# systemctl start foobar.service

Now our little daemon will be started at boot and on-demand,
whatever comes first. It can be started fully in parallel with its
clients, and when it dies it will be automatically restarted when it
is used the next time.

A single .socket file can include multiple ListenXXX stanzas, which
is useful for services that listen on more than one socket. In this
case all configured sockets will be passed to the service in the exact
order they are configured in the socket unit file. Also,
you may configure various socket settings in the .socket
files.

In real life it’s a good idea to include description strings in
these unit files, to keep things simple we’ll leave this out of our
example. Speaking of real-life: our next installment will cover an
actual real-life example. We’ll add socket activation to the CUPS
printing server.

The sd_listen_fds() function call is defined in sd-daemon.h
and sd-daemon.c. These
two files are currently drop-in .c sources which projects should
simply copy into their source tree. Eventually we plan to turn this
into a proper shared library, however using the drop-in files allows
you to compile your project in a way that is compatible with socket
activation even without any compile time dependencies on
systemd. sd-daemon.c is liberally licensed, should compile
fine on the most exotic Unixes and the algorithms are trivial enough
to be reimplemented with very little code if the license should
nonetheless be a problem for your project. sd-daemon.c
contains a couple of other API functions besides
sd_listen_fds() that are useful when implementing socket
activation in a project. For example, there’s sd_is_socket()
which can be used to distuingish and identify particular sockets when
a service gets passed more than one.

Let me point out that the interfaces used here are in no way bound
directly to systemd. They are generic enough to be implemented in
other systems as well. We deliberately designed them as simple and
minimal as possible to make it possible for others to adopt similar
schemes.

Stay tuned for the next installment. As mentioned, it will cover a
real-life example of turning an existing daemon into a
socket-activatable one: the CUPS printing service. However, I hope
this blog story might already be enough to get you started if you plan
to convert an existing service into a socket activatable one. We
invite everybody to convert upstream projects to this scheme. If you
have any questions join us on #systemd on freenode.

Germany Trip: Samba XP Keynote and LinuxTag Keynote

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/18/germany.html

I just returned a few days ago to the USA after one week in Germany. I
visited Göttingen for my keynote at Samba XP (which
I already
blogged about
).
Attending Samba XP was
an excellent experience, and I
thank SerNet for sponsoring my
trip there. Since going full-time at Conservancy last year, I have been
trying to visit the conferences of each of Conservancy’s member
projects. It will probably take me years to do this, but given that
Samba is one of Conservancy’s
charter members,
it’s good that I have finally visited Samba’s annual conference. It was
even better that they asked me to give
a keynote talk
at Samba XP
.

I must admit that I didn’t follow the details many of the talks other
than Tridge’s Samba 4 Status Report talk and
Jeremy’s The Death of File Protocols. This time I really mean
it!
talk. The rest, unsurprisingly, were highly specific and
detailed about Samba, and since I haven’t been a regular Samba user
myself since 1996, I didn’t have the background information required to
grok the talks fully. But I did see a lot of excited developers, and it
was absolutely wonderful to meet the entire Samba Team for the first
time after exchanging email with them for so many years.

It’s funny to see how different communities tend to standardize around
the same kinds of practices with minor tweaks. Having visited a lot of
project-specific conferences for Conservancy’s members, I’m seeing how
each community does their conference, and one key thing all projects
have in common is the same final conference session: a panel discussion
with all the core developers.

The Samba Team has their own little tweak on this.
First, John Terpstra asks all
speakers at the conference (which included me this year) to join the
Samba Team and stand up in front of the audience. Then, the audience
can ask any final questions of all speakers (this year, the attendees
had none). Then, the Samba Team stands up in front of the crowd and
takes questions.

The Samba tweak on this model is that the Samba Team is not permitted
to sit down during the Q&A. This year, it didn’t last that long,
but it was still rather amusing. I’ve never seen a developers’ panel
before where the developers couldn’t sit down!

After Samba XP, I headed “back” to Berlin (my
flight had landed there on Saturday and I’d taken the Deutsche Bahn ICE
train to Göttingen for Samba XP), and arrived just in
time to
attend LinuxNacht,
the LinuxTag annual party
. (WARNING: name dropping follows!) It was excellent to
see Vincent
Untz
, Lennart Poettering,
Michael Meeks and
Stefano Zacchiroli at the party
(listed in order I saw them at the party).

The next day I
attended Vincent’s
talk, which was about cross-distribution collaboration
. It was a
good talk, although, I think Vincent glossed over too much the fact that
many distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE, specifically) are
controlled by companies and that cross-distribution collaboration has
certain complications because of this corporate influence. I talked
with Vincent in more detail about this later, and he argued that the
developers at the companies in question have a lot of freedom to
operate, but I maintain there are subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle)
influences that cause problems for cross-distribution collaboration. I
also encouraged Vincent to listen
to Richard Fontana‘s talk, Open
Source Projects and Corporate Entanglement
, that Karen and I
released as an episode
of the
FaiF oggcast
.

I also attended Martin
Michlmayr
‘s talk
on SPDX
. I kibitzed more than I should have from the audience,
pointing out that while SPDX is a good “first start”, it’s a
bit of a “too little, too late” attempt to address and
prevent the flood of GPL violations that are now all too common. I
believe SPDX is a great tool for those who already are generally in
compliance, but it isn’t very likely to impact the more common
violations, wherein the companies just ignore their GPL obligations. A
lively debate ensued on this topic. I frankly hope to be proved wrong
on this; if SPDX actually ends or reduces GPL violations, I’ll be happy
to work on something else instead.

On Friday afternoon, I gave
my second
keynote of the week, which was an updated version of my talk, 12
Years of GPL Compliance: A Historical Perspective
. It went
well, although I misunderstood and thought I had a full hour slot, but
only actually had a 50 minute slot, so I had to rush a bit at the end. I
really do hate rushing at the end when speaking primarily to a
non-native-English-speaking audience, as I know I’m capable of speaking
English way too fast (a problem that I am constantly vigilant
about under normal public speaking circumstances).

The talk was nevertheless pretty well received, and afterward, I was
surrounded by a gaggle of interested copyleft enthusiasts, who, as
always, were asking what more can be done to enforce the GPL. My talks
on enforcement always tend to elicit this reaction, since my final
slides are a
bit depressing with regard to the volume of GPL enforcement that’s
currently occurring.

Meanwhile, I also decided I should also start putting up my slides from
talks in a more accessible fashion. Since I
use S5 (although I hope
to switch to jQuery
S5
RSN), my slides are trivially web-publishable anyway. While
I’ve generally
published the source code to my slides
, it makes sense to also make
compiled, quickly viewable
versions of my slides
on my website too. Finally, I realized I
should also put my upcoming public
speaking events on my frontpage
and have done so.

After a late lunch on Friday, I saw only the very end
of Lennart’s
talk on systemd
, and then I visited for a while
with Claudia
Rauch
, Business
Manager of KDE, e.V.
in the KDE booth. Claudia kindly helped me
practice my German a bit by speaking slowly enough that I could actually
parse the words.

I must admit I was pretty frustrated all week that my German is now so
poor. I studied German for two years in High School and one semester in
college. I even participated in a three-week student exchange trip to a
Gymnasium (the German term for college-prep high school) in Munich in
1990. Yet, German speaking skills are just a degraded version of what
they once were.

Meanwhile, I did rather like Berlin’s Tegel airport (TXL). It’s a
pretty small airport, but I really like its layout. Because of its
small size, each check-in area is attached to a security checkpoint,
which is then directly connected to the gate. While this might seem a
bit tight, it makes it very easy to check-in, go through security, and
then be right at your gate. I can understand why an airport this small
would have to be closed (it’s slated for closure in 2012), but I am glad
that I got a chance to travel to it (and probably again, for the Desktop
Summit) before it closes.

Germany Trip: Samba XP Keynote and LinuxTag Keynote

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/18/germany.html

I just returned a few days ago to the USA after one week in Germany. I
visited Göttingen for my keynote at Samba XP (which
I already
blogged about
).
Attending Samba XP was
an excellent experience, and I
thank SerNet for sponsoring my
trip there. Since going full-time at Conservancy last year, I have been
trying to visit the conferences of each of Conservancy’s member
projects. It will probably take me years to do this, but given that
Samba is one of Conservancy’s
charter members,
it’s good that I have finally visited Samba’s annual conference. It was
even better that they asked me to give
a keynote talk
at Samba XP
.

I must admit that I didn’t follow the details many of the talks other
than Tridge’s Samba 4 Status Report talk and
Jeremy’s The Death of File Protocols. This time I really mean
it!
talk. The rest, unsurprisingly, were highly specific and
detailed about Samba, and since I haven’t been a regular Samba user
myself since 1996, I didn’t have the background information required to
grok the talks fully. But I did see a lot of excited developers, and it
was absolutely wonderful to meet the entire Samba Team for the first
time after exchanging email with them for so many years.

It’s funny to see how different communities tend to standardize around
the same kinds of practices with minor tweaks. Having visited a lot of
project-specific conferences for Conservancy’s members, I’m seeing how
each community does their conference, and one key thing all projects
have in common is the same final conference session: a panel discussion
with all the core developers.

The Samba Team has their own little tweak on this.
First, John Terpstra asks all
speakers at the conference (which included me this year) to join the
Samba Team and stand up in front of the audience. Then, the audience
can ask any final questions of all speakers (this year, the attendees
had none). Then, the Samba Team stands up in front of the crowd and
takes questions.

The Samba tweak on this model is that the Samba Team is not permitted
to sit down during the Q&A. This year, it didn’t last that long,
but it was still rather amusing. I’ve never seen a developers’ panel
before where the developers couldn’t sit down!

After Samba XP, I headed “back” to Berlin (my
flight had landed there on Saturday and I’d taken the Deutsche Bahn ICE
train to Göttingen for Samba XP), and arrived just in
time to
attend LinuxNacht,
the LinuxTag annual party
. (WARNING: name dropping follows!) It was excellent to
see Vincent
Untz
, Lennart Poettering,
Michael Meeks and
Stefano Zacchiroli at the party
(listed in order I saw them at the party).

The next day I
attended Vincent’s
talk, which was about cross-distribution collaboration
. It was a
good talk, although, I think Vincent glossed over too much the fact that
many distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE, specifically) are
controlled by companies and that cross-distribution collaboration has
certain complications because of this corporate influence. I talked
with Vincent in more detail about this later, and he argued that the
developers at the companies in question have a lot of freedom to
operate, but I maintain there are subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle)
influences that cause problems for cross-distribution collaboration. I
also encouraged Vincent to listen
to Richard Fontana‘s talk, Open
Source Projects and Corporate Entanglement
, that Karen and I
released as an episode
of the
FaiF oggcast
.

I also attended Martin
Michlmayr
‘s talk
on SPDX
. I kibitzed more than I should have from the audience,
pointing out that while SPDX is a good “first start”, it’s a
bit of a “too little, too late” attempt to address and
prevent the flood of GPL violations that are now all too common. I
believe SPDX is a great tool for those who already are generally in
compliance, but it isn’t very likely to impact the more common
violations, wherein the companies just ignore their GPL obligations. A
lively debate ensued on this topic. I frankly hope to be proved wrong
on this; if SPDX actually ends or reduces GPL violations, I’ll be happy
to work on something else instead.

On Friday afternoon, I gave
my second
keynote of the week, which was an updated version of my talk, 12
Years of GPL Compliance: A Historical Perspective
. It went
well, although I misunderstood and thought I had a full hour slot, but
only actually had a 50 minute slot, so I had to rush a bit at the end. I
really do hate rushing at the end when speaking primarily to a
non-native-English-speaking audience, as I know I’m capable of speaking
English way too fast (a problem that I am constantly vigilant
about under normal public speaking circumstances).

The talk was nevertheless pretty well received, and afterward, I was
surrounded by a gaggle of interested copyleft enthusiasts, who, as
always, were asking what more can be done to enforce the GPL. My talks
on enforcement always tend to elicit this reaction, since my final
slides are a
bit depressing with regard to the volume of GPL enforcement that’s
currently occurring.

Meanwhile, I also decided I should also start putting up my slides from
talks in a more accessible fashion. Since I
use S5 (although I hope
to switch to jQuery
S5
RSN), my slides are trivially web-publishable anyway. While
I’ve generally
published the source code to my slides
, it makes sense to also make
compiled, quickly viewable
versions of my slides
on my website too. Finally, I realized I
should also put my upcoming public
speaking events on my frontpage
and have done so.

After a late lunch on Friday, I saw only the very end
of Lennart’s
talk on systemd
, and then I visited for a while
with Claudia
Rauch
, Business
Manager of KDE, e.V.
in the KDE booth. Claudia kindly helped me
practice my German a bit by speaking slowly enough that I could actually
parse the words.

I must admit I was pretty frustrated all week that my German is now so
poor. I studied German for two years in High School and one semester in
college. I even participated in a three-week student exchange trip to a
Gymnasium (the German term for college-prep high school) in Munich in
1990. Yet, German speaking skills are just a degraded version of what
they once were.

Meanwhile, I did rather like Berlin’s Tegel airport (TXL). It’s a
pretty small airport, but I really like its layout. Because of its
small size, each check-in area is attached to a security checkpoint,
which is then directly connected to the gate. While this might seem a
bit tight, it makes it very easy to check-in, go through security, and
then be right at your gate. I can understand why an airport this small
would have to be closed (it’s slated for closure in 2012), but I am glad
that I got a chance to travel to it (and probably again, for the Desktop
Summit) before it closes.

Germany Trip: Samba XP Keynote and LinuxTag Keynote

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/18/germany.html

I just returned a few days ago to the USA after one week in Germany. I
visited Göttingen for my keynote at Samba XP (which
I already
blogged about
).
Attending Samba XP was
an excellent experience, and I
thank SerNet for sponsoring my
trip there. Since going full-time at Conservancy last year, I have been
trying to visit the conferences of each of Conservancy’s member
projects. It will probably take me years to do this, but given that
Samba is one of Conservancy’s
charter members,
it’s good that I have finally visited Samba’s annual conference. It was
even better that they asked me to give
a keynote talk
at Samba XP
.

I must admit that I didn’t follow the details many of the talks other
than Tridge’s Samba 4 Status Report talk and
Jeremy’s The Death of File Protocols. This time I really mean
it!
talk. The rest, unsurprisingly, were highly specific and
detailed about Samba, and since I haven’t been a regular Samba user
myself since 1996, I didn’t have the background information required to
grok the talks fully. But I did see a lot of excited developers, and it
was absolutely wonderful to meet the entire Samba Team for the first
time after exchanging email with them for so many years.

It’s funny to see how different communities tend to standardize around
the same kinds of practices with minor tweaks. Having visited a lot of
project-specific conferences for Conservancy’s members, I’m seeing how
each community does their conference, and one key thing all projects
have in common is the same final conference session: a panel discussion
with all the core developers.

The Samba Team has their own little tweak on this.
First, John Terpstra asks all
speakers at the conference (which included me this year) to join the
Samba Team and stand up in front of the audience. Then, the audience
can ask any final questions of all speakers (this year, the attendees
had none). Then, the Samba Team stands up in front of the crowd and
takes questions.

The Samba tweak on this model is that the Samba Team is not permitted
to sit down during the Q&A. This year, it didn’t last that long,
but it was still rather amusing. I’ve never seen a developers’ panel
before where the developers couldn’t sit down!

After Samba XP, I headed “back” to Berlin (my
flight had landed there on Saturday and I’d taken the Deutsche Bahn ICE
train to Göttingen for Samba XP), and arrived just in
time to
attend LinuxNacht,
the LinuxTag annual party
. (WARNING: name dropping follows!) It was excellent to
see Vincent
Untz
, Lennart Poettering,
Michael Meeks and
Stefano Zacchiroli at the party
(listed in order I saw them at the party).

The next day I
attended Vincent’s
talk, which was about cross-distribution collaboration
. It was a
good talk, although, I think Vincent glossed over too much the fact that
many distributions (Fedora, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE, specifically) are
controlled by companies and that cross-distribution collaboration has
certain complications because of this corporate influence. I talked
with Vincent in more detail about this later, and he argued that the
developers at the companies in question have a lot of freedom to
operate, but I maintain there are subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle)
influences that cause problems for cross-distribution collaboration. I
also encouraged Vincent to listen
to Richard Fontana‘s talk, Open
Source Projects and Corporate Entanglement
, that Karen and I
released as an episode
of the
FaiF oggcast
.

I also attended Martin
Michlmayr
‘s talk
on SPDX
. I kibitzed more than I should have from the audience,
pointing out that while SPDX is a good “first start”, it’s a
bit of a “too little, too late” attempt to address and
prevent the flood of GPL violations that are now all too common. I
believe SPDX is a great tool for those who already are generally in
compliance, but it isn’t very likely to impact the more common
violations, wherein the companies just ignore their GPL obligations. A
lively debate ensued on this topic. I frankly hope to be proved wrong
on this; if SPDX actually ends or reduces GPL violations, I’ll be happy
to work on something else instead.

On Friday afternoon, I gave
my second
keynote of the week, which was an updated version of my talk, 12
Years of GPL Compliance: A Historical Perspective
. It went
well, although I misunderstood and thought I had a full hour slot, but
only actually had a 50 minute slot, so I had to rush a bit at the end. I
really do hate rushing at the end when speaking primarily to a
non-native-English-speaking audience, as I know I’m capable of speaking
English way too fast (a problem that I am constantly vigilant
about under normal public speaking circumstances).

The talk was nevertheless pretty well received, and afterward, I was
surrounded by a gaggle of interested copyleft enthusiasts, who, as
always, were asking what more can be done to enforce the GPL. My talks
on enforcement always tend to elicit this reaction, since my final
slides are a
bit depressing with regard to the volume of GPL enforcement that’s
currently occurring.

Meanwhile, I also decided I should also start putting up my slides from
talks in a more accessible fashion. Since I
use S5 (although I hope
to switch to jQuery
S5
RSN), my slides are trivially web-publishable anyway. While
I’ve generally
published the source code to my slides
, it makes sense to also make
compiled, quickly viewable
versions of my slides
on my website too. Finally, I realized I
should also put my upcoming public
speaking events on my frontpage
and have done so.

After a late lunch on Friday, I saw only the very end
of Lennart’s
talk on systemd
, and then I visited for a while
with Claudia
Rauch
, Business
Manager of KDE, e.V.
in the KDE booth. Claudia kindly helped me
practice my German a bit by speaking slowly enough that I could actually
parse the words.

I must admit I was pretty frustrated all week that my German is now so
poor. I studied German for two years in High School and one semester in
college. I even participated in a three-week student exchange trip to a
Gymnasium (the German term for college-prep high school) in Munich in
1990. Yet, German speaking skills are just a degraded version of what
they once were.

Meanwhile, I did rather like Berlin’s Tegel airport (TXL). It’s a
pretty small airport, but I really like its layout. Because of its
small size, each check-in area is attached to a security checkpoint,
which is then directly connected to the gate. While this might seem a
bit tight, it makes it very easy to check-in, go through security, and
then be right at your gate. I can understand why an airport this small
would have to be closed (it’s slated for closure in 2012), but I am glad
that I got a chance to travel to it (and probably again, for the Desktop
Summit) before it closes.

The collective thoughts of the interwebz