Re: [ox-en] floss enforcement/compliance
- From: Robin Green <greenrd fsc.cc>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:19:21 +0000
*puts fsc.cc hat & email address on*
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:21:54AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Rich Walker wrote:
On 25 Feb 2004, auskadi tvcabo.co.mz wrote:
I understand from the FSF in the US that they deal with enforcement
and compliance of the GPL.
As they say on their website, they can only *enforce* the GPL in court
when they are the copyright owners. (Many GNU projects and a few
non-GNU free software projects assign their copyrights to the FSF.)
If they are not the copyright owners, they can only assist with court
cases (e.g. by filing "friend of the court" briefs), and assist in
other ways, but they can't *sue* anyone.
Users (except for copyright owners) cannot enforce the GPL at all.
This is in my opinion a "bug" in the law (an understandable one given
that nothing like the GPL existed when copyright law in its current
form was drafted). At the Free Software Consortium we are drafting a
Free Software Act (google for it if interested) which might remedy
this situation - and strengthen the GPL against SCO-like attacks.
Obviously it would need to be adapted slightly for different jurisdictions,
like every law, but we are hoping that it could be implemented in a
number of countries - and maybe even be promoted by the UN.
But do they (and I presume with the support
of Prof Moglen) only do it within the US. That is within their
jurisdiction?
It would certainly be possible in principle for the FSF to bring a
case in another country, using lawyer(s) from that country.
Plaintiffs don't have "jursidiction" - courts do.
Whether they would have the resources, know-how and inclination to do
so is another question.
Certainly they have had the inclination to at least discuss the matter
with non-US infringers. In all cases so far, as far as I know, the
infringers have eventually backed down without waiting for a court
judgement. For the reason that Rich Walker explained.
I suppose another way of asking that is : does for example the FSF
Europe deal with compliance/enforcement issues within Europe? I am
aware of the fiduciary agreements that they have.
From my readings of the FSFE stuff, they would do the same thing in the
event they were approached. [Donate to FSF-E! Write your MEP!]
Again, not unless they were the copyright holders.
The FSFE is not a subsidiary of the FSF[*], so if the FSF has copyright
ownership of something that means that the FSFE usually won't, and
vice-versa (unless for some reason they were joint copyright-holders,
which doesn't tend to happen).
([*] See http://www.fsfeurope.org/about/about.en.html )
--
Robin Green
Member, Free Software Consortium