Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest - Re: Astra Linux Violates GNU GPL

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

arthur_torrey@comcast.net wrote:
> Debate about Free vs Open, or the merits of the GPL, etc. is
> IRRELEVANT - philosophy isn't the question, as like the philosophy /
> license or not, the software in question IS under the GPL, so the
> only two questions are 1. Are they violating it? 2. If they are, what
> is being done to get them into compliance?

Compliance is a question for the relevant copyright holders, not the 
public at large on this list/forum. Even if we can show non-compliance 
we don't have cause to win a copyright infringement lawsuit.

It's possible the copyright holders have no plans to defend their 
license. For all we know the copyright holders take the position on the 
matter like Linus Torvalds takes with the Linux kernel -- licensed under 
GPLv2 but okay with GPL-incompatible code within and okay with 
distributing non-compliant derivative works (such as the Linux kernel 
fork he distributes which contains proprietary blobs).

In order to understand why one would take this view and why proprietors 
encourage copyright holders to take this view, one needs to understand 
the very thing you dismiss as irrelevant -- the difference between the 
free software and open source movements. Torvalds takes an open source 
stance pleasing his proprietor fellows who apparently treat that code as 
a dumping ground for proprietary distribution. By contrast, the folks 
who make Linux-libre take a free software stance by removing said blobs 
and distributing a completely free software Linux kernel. Brad Kuhn, 
former FSF Executive Director now heading up the Software Freedom 
Conservancy, explains this very well in his talks on copyleft: an 
undefended strong copyleft license (such as the GPLv3 and AGPLv3) is 
effectively the same as licensing under a non-copylefted free software 
license like the new BSD or MIT X11 license.