On 06/05/2016 08:16 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
More likely, it will be about suing violators who are somehow successful
and taking a share in their profits and recycling that money to sue
other big violators.
No, GPL enforcement efforts (coming from the software freedom side at
least) are basically always about *compliance*. They don't ask for
profits and get money to sue others. They ask for compliance, i.e. for
the violators to release the code and move into compliance with the GPL.
Anyway, regarding the original poster: It would be counterproductive to
block export of software to places just over *fear* that GPL won't be
practically enforceable. Some portion of people will still follow the
GPL. They will keep the GPL on their derivatives. Their derivatives will
likely come back to other countries later too, and this will be
collaboration that improves GPL software. And if someone is not in
compliance, the first step is to informally ask them to comply. Lawsuits
are a measure of last resort.
Anyway, a country that doesn't have any real copyright law is an overall
improvement over a country where we have copyright-law plus GPL, because
copyright without the GPL is lousy. We need the GPL most in countries
with copyright law. In a case where copyright law is absent or weak, we
need to advocate for prohibition of DRM and mandatory source release for
published works, and then we'd have overall greatest freedom and benefit
for society.
In the end, it is simple, as Daniel said, impractical and a bad strategy
to try to control and limit the global reach of GPL software
distribution. The GPL is a strategy, not a perfect solution to everything.
Aaron
Snowdrift.coop