import of old now defunct presentation slides svn repo

6 files changed, 789 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/biography b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/biography
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22438a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/biography
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+  Harald Welte is the chairman of the netfilter/iptables core team.
+
+  His main interest in computing has always been networking.  In the few time
+left besides netfilter/iptables related work, he's writing obscure documents
+like the UUCP over SSL HOWTO.  Other kernel-related projects he has been
+contributing are user mode linux, the international (crypto) kernel patch, device drivers and the neighbour cache.
+
+  He has been working as an independent IT Consultant working on projects for
+various companies ranging from banks to manufacturers of networking gear.
+During the year 2001 he was living in Curitiba (Brazil), where he got
+sponsored for his Linux related work by Conectiva Inc.
+
+  Starting with February 2002, Harald has been contracted part-time by
+<a href="http://www.astaro.com/">Astaro AG</a>, who are sponsoring him for his
+current netfilter/iptables work.  
+
+  Aside from the Astaro sponsoring, he continues to work as a freelancing
+kernel developer and network security consultant.
+
+  He licenses his software under the terms of the GNU GPL.  He is determined to bring all users, distributors, value added resellers and vendors of netfilter/iptables based products in full compliance with the GPL, even if it includes raising legal charges.
+
+  Harald is living in Berlin, Germany.
+
+
diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/cfp-reply b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/cfp-reply
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb58c30
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/cfp-reply
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+21c3-content@cccv.de
+
+    * Name: Full name of speaker
+
+Harald Welte
+
+    * Bio: Short biography of speaker
+
+See Attachment 1
+
+    * Contact: E-Mail, phone, instant messaging etc.
+
+email: laforge@gnumonks.org
+Phone: +49-30-24033902
+Fax: +49-30-24033904
+
+    * Title: Name of event or lecture
+
+Enforcing the GNU GPL
+
+    * Subtitle: Additional title description (a couple of words, optional)
+
+Copyright helps Copyleft
+
+    * Abstract: An abstract of the event's content (max. 250 letters)
+
+Linux is used more and more, especially in the embedded market.  Unfortunately,
+a number of vendors do not comply with the GNU GPL.  The author has enforced
+the GPL numerous times in and out of court, and will talk about his experience.
+
+    * Description: A detailed description of the event's content (250 to 500 words)
+
+See Attachment 2
+
+    * Attachments: more information
+         o Links to background information
+
+http://www.gpl-violations.org/
+http://www.netfilter.org/licensing.html
+http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/linux/gpl-violations/
+
+         o Links to information on the lecture itself
+         o Slides, Paper in PDF or other formats
+
+Not yet available.
+
diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/extended-abstract b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/extended-abstract
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b5874b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/extended-abstract
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Enforcing the GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+
+More and more vendors of various computing devices, especially network-related
+appliances such as Routers, NAT-Gateways and 802.11 Access Points are using
+Linux and other GPL licensed free software in their products.
+
+While the Linux community can look at this as a big success, there is a back
+side of that coin:  A large number of those vendors have no idea about the GPL
+license terms, and as a result do not fulfill their obligations under the GPL.
+
+The netfilter/iptables project has started legal proceedngs against a number of
+companies in violation of the GPL since December 2003.  Those legal proceedings
+were quite successful so far, resulting in twelve amicable agreements and one
+granted preliminary injunction.  The list of companies includes large
+corporations such as Siemens, Asus and Belkin.
+
+The speaker will present an overview about his recent successful enforcement of
+the GNU GPL within German jurisdiction.  
+
+He will go on speaking about what exactly is neccessarry to fully comply with
+the GPL, including his legal position on corner cases such as cryptographic
+signing.
+
+Resulting from his experience in dealing with the german legal system, he will
+give some hints to software authors about what they can do in order to make
+eventual later license enforcement easier.
+
+In the end, it seems like the idea of the founding fathers of the GNU GPL
+works:  Guaranteeing Copyleft by using Copyright.
diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.mgp b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.mgp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..71dd062
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.mgp
@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
+%include "default.mgp"
+%default 1 bgrad
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+%nodefault
+%back "blue"
+
+%center
+%size 7
+
+
+The GPL is not Public Domain
+
+
+%center
+%size 4
+by
+
+Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org>
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Contents 1/2
+
+
+	Introduction
+	What is Copyrightable?
+	Terminology
+	Common FOSS Licenses
+	The GNU GPL Revisited
+	Complete Source Code
+	Derivative Works
+	Non-Public Modifications
+	GPL Violations
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Contents 2/2
+
+
+	Past GPL Enforcement
+	The Linksys case
+	Typical enforcement timeline
+	Success so far
+	Cases so far
+	Future GPL Enforcement
+	Thanks
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page 
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Introduction
+
+
+Who is speaking to you?
+		an independent Free Software developer
+		who earns his living off Free Software since 1997
+		who is one of the authors of the Linux kernel firewall system called netfilter/iptables
+		who IS NOT A LAWYER, although this presentation is the result of dealing almost a year with lawyers on the subject of the GPL
+
+Why is he speaking to you?
+		because he thinks there is too much confusion about copyright and free software licenses. Even Red Hat CEO Matt Szulik stated in an interview that RedHat puts investments into 'public domain' :(
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Disclaimer
+
+Legal Disclaimer
+
+		All information presented here is provided on an as-is basis
+		There is no warranty for correctness of legal information
+		The author is not a lawyer
+		This does not comprise legal advise
+		The authors experience is limited to German copyright law
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+What is copyrightable?
+
+	The GNU GPL is a copyright license, and thus only covers copyrighted works
+	Not everything is copyrightable (German: Schoepfungshoehe)
+		Small bugfixes are not copyrightable (similar to typo-fixes in a book)
+		As soon as the programmer has a choice in the implementation, there is significant indication of a copyrightable work
+		Choice in algorithm, not in formal representation
+	Apparently, the level for copyrightable works is relatively low
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Terminology
+
+	Public Domain
+		concept where copyright holder abandons all rights
+		same legal status as works where author has died 70 years ago (German: Gemeinfreie Werke)
+	Freeware
+		object code, free of cost. No source code
+	Shareware
+		proprietary "Try and Buy" model for object code.
+	Cardware/Beerware/...
+		Freeware that encourages users to send payment in kind
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Terminology
+
+	Free Software
+		source code freely distributed
+		must allow redistribution, modification, non-discriminatory use
+		mostly defined by Free Software Foundation
+	Open Source
+		source code freely distributed
+		must allow redistribution, modification, non-discriminatory use
+		defined in the "Open Source Definition" by OSI
+
+	The rest of this document will refer to Free and Open Source Software as FOSS.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Common FOSS licenses
+
+	Original BSD License
+		allows redistribution, modification
+		even allows proprietary extensions with no source code offer
+		all docs, advertisement materials have to mention copyright holder
+	Modified BSD License
+		same as "Original BSD License", but no copyright statements required in docs and advertisements
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Common FOSS licenses
+
+	GPL (GNU General Public Liense)
+		allows redistribution, including modified works
+		obliges distributor to supply source code including all modifications
+		usage rights are revoked if license conditions not met
+	LGPL (GNU Library General Public License)
+		explicitly allows linking of proprietary applications
+		written as special case for libraries (such as glibc)
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+
+Revisiting the GNU General Public License
+
+		Regulates distribution of copyrighted code, not usage
+		Allows distribution of source code and modified source code
+			The license itself is mentioned
+			A copy of the license accompanies every copy
+		Allows distribution of binaries or modified binaries, if
+			The license itself is mentioned
+			A copy of the license accompanies every copy
+			The complete source code is either included with the copy made available to any 3rd party
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Complete Source Code
+
+%size 3
+"... complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
+	Our interpretation of this is:
+		Source Code
+		Makefiles
+		Tools for generating the firmware binary from the source
+			(even if they are technically no 'scripts')
+	General Rule:
+		Intent of License is to enable user to run modified versions of the program.  They need to be enabled to do so.
+		Result: Signing binaries and only accepting signed versions without providing a signature key is not acceptable!
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Derivative Works
+
+	What is a derivative work?
+		Not dependent on any particular kind of technology (static/dynamic linking, dlopen, whatever)
+		Even while the modification can itself be a copyrightable work, the combination with GPL-licensed code is subject to GPL.
+	No precendent in Germany so far
+		As soon as code is written for a specific non-standard API (such as the iptables plugin API), there is significant indication for a derivative work
+		This position has been successfully enforced out-of-court with two Vendors so far (iptables modules/plugins).
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Derivative Works
+
+	Position of my lawyer:
+		In-kernel proprietary code (binary kernel modules) are hard to claim GPL compliant
+		Case-by-case analysis required, especially when drivers/filesystems are ported from other OS's.
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Collected Works
+
+%size 3
+"... it is not the intent .. to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works ..."
+%size 3
+"... mere aggregation of another work ... with the program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this license"
+
+	GPL allows "mere aggregation"
+		like a general-porpose Linux distribution (SuSE, Red Hat, ...)
+
+	GPL disallows "collective works"
+		legal grey area
+		tends to depend a lot on jurisdiction
+		no precendent so far
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+Non-Public modifications
+
+	Non-Public modifications
+		A common misconception is that if you develop code within a corporation, and the code never leaves this corporation, you don't have to ship the source code.
+		However, at least German law would count every distribution beyound a number of close colleague as distribution.  
+		Therefore, if you don't go for '3a' and include the source code together with the binary, you have to distribute the source code to any third party.
+		Also, as soon as you hand code between two companies, or between a company and a consultant, the code has been distributed.
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+The GNU GPL Revisited
+GPL Violations
+
+	When do I violate the license
+		when one ore more of the obligations are not fulfilled
+
+	What risk do I take if I violate the license?
+		the GPL automatically revokes any usage right
+		any copyright holder can obtain a preliminary injunction banning distribution of the infringing product
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Past GPL enforcement
+
+Past GPL enforcement
+
+		GPL violations are nothing new, as GPL licensed software is nothing new.
+		However, the recent Linux hype made GPL licensed software used more often
+		The FSF enforces GPL violations of code on which they hold the copyright
+			silently, without public notice
+			in lengthy negotiations
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+The Linksys case
+
+
+	During 2003 the "Linksys" case drew a lot of attention
+		Linksys was selling 802.11 WLAN Acces Ponts / Routers
+		Lots of GPL licensed software embedded in the device (included Linux, uClibc, busybox, iptables, ...)
+		FSF led alliance took the usual "quiet" approach 
+		Linksys bought it self a lot of time
+		Some source code ws released two months later
+		About four months later, full GPL compliance was achieved
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+The Linksys case
+
+
+	Some developers didn't agree with this approach
+		not enough publicity
+		violators don't loose anything by first not complying and wait for the FSF
+		four months delay is too much for low product lifecycles in WLAN world
+	The netfilter/iptables project started to do their own enforcement in more cases that were coming up
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Enforcement case timeline
+
+
+	In chronological order
+		some user sends us a note he found our code somewhere
+		reverse engineering of firmware images
+		sending the infringing organization a warning notice
+		wait for them to sign a statement to cease and desist
+		if no statement is signed
+			contract technical expert to do a stdudy
+			apply for a preliminary injunction
+		if statement was signed
+			try to work out the details 
+			grace period for boxes in stock possible
+			try to indicate that a donation would be good PR
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Sucess so far
+
+
+	Success so far
+		amicable agreements with a number of companies
+			some of which made significant donations to charitable organizations of the free software community
+		preliminary injunction against Sitecom, Sitecom also lost appeals case 
+		more settled cases (not public yet)
+		negotiating in more cases
+		public awareness 
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GPL enforcement report
+Cases so far
+
+		Allnet GmbH
+		Siemens AG
+		Fujitsu-Siemens Computers GmbH
+		Axis A.B.
+		Securepoint GmbH
+		U.S.Robotics Germany GmbH
+		undisclosed large vendor
+		Belkin Compnents GmbH
+		Asus GmbH
+		Gateprotect GmbH
+		Sitecom GmbH
+		TomTom B.V.
+		Gigabyte Technologies GmbH
+		D-Link GmbH
+		Sun Deutschland GmbH
+		Open-E GmbH
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Future GPL Enforcement
+
+GPL Enforcement
+		remains an important issue for Free Software
+		will start to happen within the court
+		has to be made public in order to raise awareness
+
+Problems
+		only the copyright holder (in most cases the author) can do it
+		users discovering GPL'd software need to communicate those issues to all copyright holders
+
+The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project was started
+		as a platform wher users can report alleged violations
+		to verify those violations and inform all copyright holders
+		to inform the public about ongoing enforcement efforts
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Make later enforcement easy
+
+	Practical rules for proof by reverse engineering
+		Don't fix typos in error messages and symbol names
+		Leave obscure error messages like 'Rusty needs more caffeine'
+		Make binary contain string of copyright message, not only source
+	Practical rules for potential damages claims
+		Use revision control system
+		Document source of each copyrightable contribution
+			Name+Email address in CVS commit message
+		Consider something like FSFE FLA (Fiduciary License Agreement)
+		Make sure that employers are fine with contributions of their employees
+	If you find out about violation
+		Don't make it public (has to be new/urgent for injunctive relief)
+		Contact lawyer immediately to send wanrning notice
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Thanks
+
+	Thanks to
+		Alan Cox, Alexey Kuznetsov, David Miller, Andi Kleen
+			for implementing (one of?) the world's best TCP/IP stacks
+		Paul 'Rusty' Russell
+			for starting the netfilter/iptables project
+			for trusting me to maintain it today
+		Astaro AG
+			for sponsoring parts of my netfilter work
+		Free Software Foundation
+			for the GNU Project 
+			for the GNU General Public License
+%size 3
+	The slides of this presentation are available at http://www.gnumonks.org/
+
+	Further Reading
+%size 3
+	The netfilter homepage http://www.netfilter.org/
+%size 3
+	The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project
+
+
diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.xml b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.xml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3265e48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/gpl-ccc2004.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='ISO-8859-1'?>
+
+<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC '-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.3//EN' 'http://www.docbook.org/xml/4.3/docbookx.dtd'>
+
+<article id="gpl-enforcement-ccc2004">
+
+<articleinfo>
+	<title>Enforcing the GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft</title>
+	<authorgroup>
+		<author>
+			<personname>
+				<firstname>Harald</firstname>
+				<surname>Welte</surname>
+			</personname>
+		<!--
+			<personblurb>Harald Welte</personblurb>
+				<affiliation>
+					<orgname>netfilter core team</orgname>
+					<address>
+						<email>laforge@netfilter.org</email>
+					</address>
+				</affiliation>
+
+			-->
+			<email>laforge@gpl-violations.org</email>
+		</author>
+		</authorgroup>
+	<copyright>
+		<year>2004</year>
+		<holder>Harald Welte &lt;laforge@gpl-violations.org&gt; </holder>
+	</copyright>
+	<date>Dec 01, 2004</date>
+	<edition>1</edition>
+	<orgname>netfilter core team</orgname>
+	<releaseinfo>
+		$Revision: 1.4 $
+	</releaseinfo>
+
+	<abstract>
+		<para>
+More and more vendors of various computing devices, especially network-related
+appliances such as Routers, NAT-Gateways and 802.11 Access Points are using
+Linux and other GPL licensed free software in their products.
+		</para>
+		<para>
+While the Linux community can look at this as a big success, there is a back
+side of that coin:  A large number of those vendors have no idea about the GPL
+license terms, and as a result do not fulfill their obligations under the GPL.
+		</para>
+		<para>
+The netfilter/iptables project has started legal proceedngs against a number of
+companies in violation of the GPL since December 2003.  Those legal proceedings
+were quite successful so far, resulting in twelve amicable agreements and one
+granted preliminary injunction.  The list of companies includes large
+corporations such as Siemens, Asus and Belkin.
+		</para>
+		<para>
+This paper and the corresponding presentation will give an overview about the
+author's recent successful enforcement of the GNU GPL within German
+jurisdiction.  
+		</para>
+		<para>
+The paper will  go on describing what exactly is neccessarry to fully comply
+with the GPL, including the author's legal position on corner cases such as
+cryptographic signing.
+		</para>
+		<para>
+In the end, it seems like the idea of the founding fathers of the GNU GPL
+works:  Guaranteeing Copyleft by using Copyright.
+		</para>
+	</abstract>
+
+</articleinfo>
+
+
+<section>
+<title>Legal Disclaimer</title>
+<para>
+The author of this paper is a software developer, not a lawyer.  The content of
+this paper represents his knowledge after dealing with the legal issues of
+about 20 gpl violation cases.
+</para>
+<para>
+All information in this paper is presented on a nas-is basis.  There is no
+warranty for correctness.
+</para>
+<para>
+The paper does not comprise legal advise, and any details might be coupled to German copyright law (UrhG)
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>What is copyrightable</title>
+<para>
+Since the GNU GPL is a copyright license, it can only cover copyrightable
+works.  The exact definition of what is copyrightable and what not might vary
+from legislation to legislation.
+</para>
+<para>
+Software is considered the immaterial result of a creative act, and is treated
+very much like literary works.  It might therefore be applicable to look at the
+analogy of a printed book.
+</para>
+<para>
+In order for a work to be copyrightable, it has to be non-trivial (German:
+Sch&ouml;pfungsh&ouml;he).  Much like a lector of a book, anybody who just
+corrects spelling mistakes, compiler warnings, or even functional fixes such as
+fixing a signedness bug or a typecast are unlikely to be seen as a
+copyrightable contribution to an existing work.
+</para>
+<para>
+An indication for copyrightability can be the question:  Did the author have a
+choice (i.e. between different algorithms)?  As soon as there are multiple ways
+of getting a particular job done, and the author has to make decisions on which
+way to go, this is an indication for copyrightability.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>The GNU GPL revisited</title>
+<para>
+As a copyright license, the GNU GPL mainly regulates distribution of a
+copyrighted work, not usage.  To the opposite, the GNU GPL does not allow an
+author to make any additional restrictions like <quote>must not be used for
+military purpose</quote>.
+</para>
+<para>
+As a summary, the license allows distribution of the source code (including
+modifications, if any) if 
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>The GPL license itself is mentioned</listitem>
+<listitem>A copy of the full license text accompanies every copy</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+<para>
+The GPL allows distribution of the object code (including modifications) if
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>The GPL license itself is mentioned</listitem>
+<listitem>A copy of the full license text accompanies every copy</listitem>
+<listitem>The <quote>complete corresponding source code</quote> or a written offer to ship it to any third party is included with every copy</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Complete Source Code</title>
+<para>
+The GPL contains a very specific definition of what the term <quote>full source
+code</quote> actually means in practise:
+</para>
+<quote><para>
+... complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
+plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable.
+</para></quote>
+<para>
+The interpretation of the paper's author of this (for C programs) is:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>source code</listitem>
+<listitem>Header Files</listitem>
+<listitem>Makefiles</listitem>
+<listitem>Tools for installation of a modified binary, even if they are not technically implemented as scripts</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+<para>
+The general rule in case of any question is the intent of the license: To
+enable the user to modify the source code and run modified versions.
+</para>
+<para>
+This brings us to the conclusion that in case of a bundle of hardware and
+software, the hardware can not be implemented in a way to only accept
+cryptographically signed software, without providing either the original key,
+or the option of setting a new key in the hardware.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+
+<section>
+<title>Derivative Work</title>
+<para>
+The question of derivative works is probably the hardest question with regard
+to the GPL.  According to the license text, any derivative work can only be
+distributed under the GPL, too.  However, the definition of a derivative work
+is left to the legal framework of copyright.
+</para>
+<para>
+The paper's author is convinced that any court decision would not look at the
+particular technology used to integrate multiple software parts.  It is much
+more a question of how much dependency there is between the two pieces.
+</para>
+<para>
+If a program is written against a specific non-standard API, this can be
+considered as an indication for a derivative work.  If a program is written
+against standard APIs, and the GPL licensed parts that provide those APIs can
+be easily exchanged with other [existing] implementations, then it can be considered as indication for no derivative work.
+</para>
+<para>
+Unfortunately there is no precedent on this issue, so it's up to the first
+court decisions on the issue of derivative works to determine.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Collective Works</title>
+<para>
+<quote>... it is not the intent ... to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to excercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works ...</quote>
+</para>
+<para>
+<quote>... mere aggregation of another work ... with the program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this license</quote>
+</para>
+<para>
+So the GPL allows <quote>mere aggregation</quote>, which is what e.g. the
+GNU/Linux distributors like RedHat or SuSE do, when they ship GPL-licensed
+programs together with a proprietary Macromedia Flash player on one CD- or
+DVD-Medium.
+</para>
+<para>
+Further research is required to determine what exactly would be a collective
+work, and how far this is backed by copyright law.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Non-Public Modifications</title>
+<para>
+Since the GPL regulates distribution and not use, any modifications that are
+not distributed in any form do not require offering the source code.
+</para>
+<para>
+Special emphasis has to be given on when distribution happens within the legal
+context.
+</para>
+Undoubtedly, as soon as you distribute modifications to a third party, such as
+a contractor or another company, you are bound by the GPL to either include the
+full source code, or a written offer.  Please note that if you don't include
+the source code at any given time, the written offer must be available to any third party!
+</para>
+<para>
+Interestingly, at least in German copyright law, distribution can also happen
+within an organization.  Apparently, as soon as a copy is distributed to a
+group larger than a small number of close colleagues whom you know personally,
+distribution happens - and thus the obligations of the GPL apply.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>GPL Violations</title>
+<para>
+The GPL is violated as soon as one or more of the obligations are not fulfilled.</para>
+<para>
+For this case, the GPL automatically revokes any right, even the usage right on
+the original unmodified code.  So not only the distribution is infringing, also the mere use is no longer permitted.
+</para>
+<para>
+This very strong provision is quite common in copyright licenses, especially in
+the world of proprietary software.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Past GPL Enforcement</title>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>The Linksys Case</title>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Enforcement Case Timeline</title>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Success so far</title>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Future GPL Enforcement</title>
+</section>
+
+</article>
+
diff --git a/2004/gpl-ccc2004/short-abstract b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/short-abstract
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e0aa9b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2004/gpl-ccc2004/short-abstract
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Linux is used more and more, especially in the embedded market.  Unfortunately,
+a number of vendors do not comply with the GNU GPL.  The author has enforced 
+the GPL numerous times in and out of court, and will talk about his experience.
+