OpenChess

There seems to be some misconception of what the FSF does/expects regarding GPL compliance. Simply put, they want the violator to provide source code, as they think this is a "right" the user always had in the first place. Little else is likely to satisfy them.

Here is the original post:

M ANSARI wrote:There is no doubt that Vas used Fruit as a basis to start with Rybka, I think that is very clear from Vas's own read me file in Rybka 1.0 beta. Now whether he might have initially crossed some lines with regards to GPL license remains to be seen and that would actually not be uncommon as it happens unintentionally very often. If the FSF were to find that he did cross some lines, their first line of action would be to contact Vas and request that he either change the code they thought infringed on their license or remove it or open up all his source code. The way it has been portrayed by Bob and others is simply not correct ... the FSF is not like a commercial software company trying to find someone to sue. They usually are trying to build bridges with computer programmers and will ALWAYS privately contact the author first and request he change his code and not go after him Helter Skelter. Had this been done, I have no doubt that Vas would have either amended his code or at least try to allay any fears of license abuse. I have heard that the FSF is looking into the Fruit / Rybka allegations, but unfortunately no information from them has surfaced either way. That would have been the correct avenue of investigating Rybka.

The most useful (publicly available) information on this subject is on the FSF Compliance Lab page. As one can note, they have a "philosophy" (we only want violators to come back into compliance, and help repair any harm done to the free software community by their past actions), and they assume that GPL violators [who are often accidental] are willing to open their source code [yes, they perhaps live in a rather small fishbowl of thought], comply with the GPL, etc. They are friendly and cordial to those who wish to join their open-source crusade. On the other hand, as GCP can tell you, they do pursue damages when the violators are stubborn. And as noted above, they are quite particular about open-source being a de facto non-negotiable.

If the FSF were to find that he did cross some lines, their first line of action would be to contact Vas and request that he either change the code they thought infringed on their license or remove it or open up all his source code. [...] They usually are trying to build bridges with computer programmers and will ALWAYS privately contact the author first and request he change his code and not go after him Helter Skelter.

See the above page for what "building bridges" means to the FSF. If a violator is unwilling/unable to provide source code, there are essentially no bridges to be built.

Also, I would say that it is categorically wrong that mere "code emendation" is sufficient for the FSF. See the FSF page, where (as an example) they indicate that making source code available to those who purchased previous versions would be a suitable remedy.

FSF Compliance Lab wrote:We also ask violators to do what they can to amend their errors. For example, if they failed to provide source to their previous customers, they may be able to contact those people to offer it now, or at least make the information public so anyone who's interested can find it. They can usually manage to do something that helps give users back the rights they were always supposed to have under the license.

If you distribute X and it violates the GPL, you can't solve your problem with the FSF merely by changing the code of X, or even by stopping distribution of X -- rather, you must strive to ensure that all who received X also receive the source code, as per the GPL. If that is not possible, the likely result is that they (with the SFLC) will pursue applicable copyright infringement with respect to X.

Had this been done, I have no doubt that Vas would have either amended his code or at least try to allay any fears of license abuse. I have heard that the FSF is looking into the Fruit / Rybka allegations, but unfortunately no information from them has surfaced either way.

FSF Compliance Lab wrote:When the violator is cooperative and responsive, things move quickly. Otherwise, this work can span a number of months.

My impression [from earlier internal communication, though I haven't heard anything recently -- it is summer vacation for many, after all] is that the latter is the case here. If you want a previous quotation from the FSF License Compliance Engineer (to Fabien):

I would like to see Mark Watkins' paper when it's available, but I'm not sure we need to wait for that before we contact Rybka's developers; the existing evidence should be sufficient. [...]

I'm not sure what "paper" this refers to, but I think this is from prior to my mid-July meeting with Fabien, and that it presumably referred to a summary of the ICGA work, as pertained to copyright. I later provided a Rybka history, and there was a specific "cause of action" mentioned [I told the FSF guy that the "free software" (meaning open-source in their lingo) angle was unlikely to go anywhere here, but he was still going to follow their standard procedure].

Vas has nothing to worry until a notice of default falls on his doormat. It's only then he needs a lawyer. Known strategy, let the other party make some costs first.