import of old now defunct presentation slides svn repo

13 files changed, 1841 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/about-hmwconsulting.tex b/2005/gpl-ec2005/about-hmwconsulting.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7dd55a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/about-hmwconsulting.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
+
+\pagestyle{myheadings}
+
+\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\topmargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\topskip}{0mm}
+\setlength{\headheight}{0mm}
+\setlength{\textheight}{230mm}
+\setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}
+
+\markright{Appendix B: About the Speaker and his projects}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\date{}
+
+\title{About hmw-consulting}
+
+\author{Harald Welte}
+
+% \maketitle
+
+\section{About Mr. Harald Welte}
+
+Harald Welte is an independent software developer and
+consultant\footnote{http://www.hmw-consulting.com/} in the fields of operating
+system development and network security, as well as high-performance data
+communications and embedded computing.  
+
+Starting with 1992, Mr. Welte has been participating in the BBS community,
+gathering operational experience with German and International message-based
+offline communications networks, such as the FIDO Network and Z-Netz.
+
+In 1994, at a time where only the academic community in Germany had access to
+the Internet, he's been pioneering the effort of bringing Internet connectivity
+to individuals as part of a non-for-profit effort\footnote{Kommunikationsnetz
+Franken e.V. (http://www.franken.de/)}. He gathererd first-hand experience of
+early ISP\footnote{Internet Service Provider} operations. Due to the almost
+non-existant commercial products for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), he was
+using readily-available Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
+
+Starting in 1997, Mr. Welte became a full-time consultant for Linux/Unix
+Kernel and Network development.
+
+His technical involvement with the network stack of the Linux Operating System
+became stronger over time, and starting with 2001 he was appointed the chairman
+of the netfilter/iptables\footnote{http://www.netfilter.org/} project.
+
+Mr. Welte is a regular speaker at international Linux and network security
+related conferences, presenting at up to 17 such events per year.
+
+He is serving as a FOSS advisor to Astaro AG\footnote{http://www.astaro.com/},
+providing guidance for the companies' FOSS involvement and contacts.
+
+His client list includes small and medium sized businesses and Germany,
+international Linux distributors as well as large international vendors of
+networking equipment.
+
+Furthermore, Mr. Welte is a member of a number of non-for-profit organizations
+related to the Internet, Computer Security, Digital/Civil Rights, such as the
+CCC\footnote{Chaos Computer Club (http://www.ccc.de/)},
+FFII\footnote{Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
+(http://www.ffii.org/)}, KNF\footnote{Kommunikationsnetz Franken e.V.
+(http://www.franken.de/)}, ISOC.de\footnote{Internet Society German Chapter
+(http://www.isoc.de/)} and Humanistische Union\footnote{Humanistische Union (http://www.humanistische-union.de/)}.
+
+  Mr. Welte is currently living in Berlin, Germany.
+
+\newpage
+
+\section{About the netfilter/iptables project}
+
+netfilter/iptables is a Free Software project providing an enormously large
+toolbox for network security, so-called ``firewalling''.  Firewalls act as
+security gateway between an organization-internal network and a public network, such as the Internet.
+
+netfilter/iptables is probably\footnote{as the software can be copied by
+anyone, there is no way to determine the exact usage number} the mostly-used
+firewall software worldwide.
+
+Apart from being part of virtually any Linux Installation, there are hundreds
+of commercial vendors offering Firewall Software and/or Hardware Appliances
+based on netfilter/iptables, ranging from consumer-class equipment up to
+enterprise firewalls.
+
+Companies shipping netfilter/iptables based security gateways include Secunet,
+Novell, Astaro, Smoothwall, Balabit, Siemens, Fujitsu-Siemens, Deutsche
+Telekom, Netgear, Belkin, Cisco/Linksys, Asus.
+
+One netfilter/iptables based security product\footnote{SecuNet SINA
+(http://www.secunet.de/} has been awarded with classification level {\em NATO SECRET}).
+
+\section{About hmw-consulting}
+
+hmw-consulting is Mr. Welte's Berlin (Germany) based Information Technology
+Consulting Business, offering consulting, development and training in the areas
+of
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Networking (Internet, Intranet, Extranet)
+\item Network Security (Firewalls, Proxies, Intrusion Detection, VPN)
+\item Linux Kernel Development (Device Drivers, Networking Protcols)
+\item Embedded Linux (ARM, MIPS, x86, PowerPC)
+\item Industrial Linux Computing (Data Acquisition, Statistical Process Control)
+\end{itemize}
+
+
+
+\end{document}
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/biography b/2005/gpl-ec2005/biography
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..165a4dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/biography
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+  Harald Welte is a independent software developer and consultant[1] in the
+fields of operating system development and network security, as well as
+high-performance data communications and embedded computing.  For a number of
+years, he is the chairman of the netfilter/iptables[2] project, a Free Software
+solution for Linux-based network firewalls.
+
+  During the last six years, he has been contracted for projects by various
+international companies of all industries, ranging from software vendors to
+banks to manufacturers of networking gear.
+
+  He licenses his software under the terms of the GNU GPL, and is determined to
+bring all users, distributors, value added resellers and vendors of projects
+based on his software in full compliance with the GPL, even if it includes
+raising legal charges.
+
+  Apart from his technical work, Harald is participating in a number of
+non-for-profit organizations such as the CCC[3], FFII[4].
+
+  Mr. Welte is currently living in Berlin, Germany.
+
+[1] http://www.hmw-consulting.de/
+[2] http://www.netfilter.org/
+[3] http://www.ccc.de/
+[4] http://www.ffii.org/
+
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/extended-abstract b/2005/gpl-ec2005/extended-abstract
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b15ce0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/extended-abstract
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+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 Wireless 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, two
+granted preliminary injunctions and one court order.  The list of companies
+includes large international corporations such as Siemens, Deutsche Telekom,
+Hitachi, Asus and Belkin.
+
+The speaker will present an overview about his recent successful enforcement of
+the GNU GPL within German jurisdiction.  
+
+In the end, it seems like the idea of the founding fathers of the GNU GPL
+works:  Guaranteeing the freedom of Free Software by using Copyright to create
+Copyleft.
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.mgp b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.mgp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..71dd062
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.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/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.pdf b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4b09e54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.pdf
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.xml b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.xml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d75916c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-ec2005.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,413 @@
+<?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>Free Software and its role in the software industry</title>
+<para>
+Though Free Software (sometimes referred to as Open Source Software) according
+to our definition exists since the early 1980's, it didn't became popular until
+the advent of the internet.
+</para>
+<para>
+The concept of cooperative development between otherwise unrelated parties was an ideal match with the new possibilities of worldwide communication.
+</para>
+<para>
+Free Software finds its way into almost any market within the industry.  While
+FOSS deployment traditionally being strong in the server market, it recently
+gains in the desktop workstation market, too (e.g. Open Office, Mozilla).
+</para>
+<para>
+However, the largest number of FOSS deployments is in the embedded computing
+market.  You can easily find Linux and other FOSS embeddeed into devices such
+as DSL routers, WLAN access points, network attached storage, digital TV
+receivers, home multimedia centres and recently even wireless phones.
+</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><para>The GPL license itself is mentioned</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>A copy of the full license text accompanies every copy</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+<para>
+The GPL allows distribution of the object code (including modifications) if
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>The GPL license itself is mentioned</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>A copy of the full license text accompanies every copy</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>The <quote>complete corresponding source code</quote> or a written offer to ship it to any third party is included with every copy</para></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>
+<para><quote>
+... 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.
+</quote></para>
+<para>
+The interpretation of the paper's author of this (for C programs) is:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>source code</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Header Files</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Makefiles</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Tools for installation of a modified binary, even if they are not technically implemented as scripts</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+<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>
+<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 - so businesses involved in the software businesses are already used to that concept.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Past GPL Enforcement</title>
+<para>
+In fact, GPL enforcement is not something completely new.  The Free Software
+Foundation (FSF) has been handling a number of GPL enforcement cases throughout
+it's history since 1984.
+</para>
+<para>
+However, their approach is quiet negotiations with the respective parties.
+While this being productive in the respective cases, it obviously cannot serve
+as example to raise public awareness about GPL compliance.
+</para>
+<para>
+Also, anyone who uses GPL licensed software doesn't really have an economic
+incentive to behave license compliant, if he cannot loose something.  While the
+Free Software movement being very ideological, we cannot neglect the fact that
+businesses are only driven by economy.
+</para>
+<para>
+Thus, it is the idea of the author to raise the economic price of license
+infringement by 
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>making infringement public (and thus imposing a negative marketing effect)</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>raising legal charges which force them to comply or otherwise loose the chance to use GPL covered code</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>claiming damages as a direct economic price</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>The Linksys Case</title>
+<para>
+In 2003, the Linksys Case was drawing a lot of attention from the FOSS
+community.  Linksys Corporation (a subsidiary of Cisco, the worldwide leader in
+network equipment such as enterprise switches and routers) was selling 802.11
+(aka WiFi, WLAN) Access Points and Routers containing GPL licensed software.
+The devices were sold virtually worldwide, and Linksys is one of the largest
+players in the 802.11 consumer market.  Software embedded into the device
+contains the Linux OS Kernel, uClibc, busybox, netfilter/iptables.  
+</para>
+<para>
+An alliance of copyright holders (including the author of this paper) was lead by the Free Software Foundation to bring Linksys into compliance with the GPL license terms.
+</para>
+<para>
+While in the end successfully bringing Linksys into compliance, it took that
+alliance about four months to achieve the full sourcecode release by Linksys.
+</para>
+<para>
+The strategy of Linksys was to overly delay the negotiations, making one
+incoomplete source code release after the other.
+</para>
+<para>
+Especially considering that the product lifecycle in the 802.11 being usually
+somewhere between three and six months, this kind of delay was not acceptable
+to a number of involved copyright holders.
+</para>
+<para>
+Looking back from now, it is important to note that the Linksys GPL case has
+actually helped Linksys a lot with regard to the popularity of their products.
+A lot of users buy their product exactly because they know they receive the
+sourcecode and the right to modify it.  There's now a vivid community around
+their products, offering community-based alternative software (aka firmware)
+for them.  Also, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have alternative
+commercial free software offers.  Due to that success, almost any new Linksys
+product was based on Free Software, too!
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Enforcement Case Timeline</title>
+<para>
+The author of this paper started the <quote>gpl-violations.org</quote> project 
+in order to help with new cases coming up after the Linksys case.
+</para>
+<para>
+The usual timeline of an enforcemnt case looks like this:
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>Customer/User of the product sends information about the product to copyright holders</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Copyright holders confirm violation by re-engineering the product and making a test purchase</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Copyright holder sends a warning notice to the product vendor</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>Copyright holder waits for some two weeks if vendor is willing to sing a declaration to cease and decist</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>If no declaration to cease and decist was signed
+       <itemizedlist>
+       <listitem><para>Contract technical expert recognized to court to do a study</para></listitem>
+       <listitem><para>Apply for a preliminary injunction at court</para></listitem>
+       </itemizedlist>
+</para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>If declaration to cease and decist was signed
+       <itemizedlist>
+       <listitem><para>Try to find amicable agreement about damages and information claims</para></listitem>
+       <listitem><para>Probably grant a grace period for products already produced and in stock</para></listitem>
+       </itemizedlist>
+</para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Success so far</title>
+<para>
+Since the launch of gpl-violations.org, it has been a huge success for the FOSS
+community.  Up to now, there have been about 25 cases where the GPL has been
+enforced out-of-court.  In addition, there two preliminary injunctions have
+been granted.  An appeals case against one injunction was turned down by the
+court. Thus, precedent has been set forth for likely further cases to follow.
+</para>
+<para>
+Especially the first preliminary injunction received big interest throughout
+the computing industry and the legal community.  It received significant media
+coverage and thus resulted in exactly what the copyright holders wanted to
+achive: Raising public awareness about the GPL license conditions.
+</para>
+</section>
+
+<section>
+<title>Further Reading</title>
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem><para>The Free Software Foundation: <ulink url="http://www.fsf.org/"/></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>The gpl-violations.org project: <ulink url="http://www.gpl-violations.org/"/></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>The GNU project project: <ulink url="http://www.gnu.org/"/></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>The law firm JBB (has court orders as PDF on their site): <ulink url="http://www.jbb.de/"/></para></listitem>
+<listitem><para>The gpl-violations.org section in the weblog of the author: <ulink url="http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/linux/gpl-violations"/></para></listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+<para>
+</para>
+</section>
+
+
+</article>
+
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.fourpages.pdf b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.fourpages.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e89c4e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.fourpages.pdf
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.mgp b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.mgp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..855c9fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.mgp
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+%include "default.mgp"
+%default 1 bgrad
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+%nodefault
+%back "blue"
+
+%center
+%size 7
+
+
+Enforcing the GNU GPL
+Copyright helps Copyleft
+
+
+%center
+%size 4
+by
+
+Harald Welte <hwelte@hmw-consulting.de>
+
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Contents
+
+	About the speaker
+	Free Software and it's role in the industry
+	Free Software development model
+	Free Software Licenses
+	The GNU GPL Revisited
+	GPL Violations
+	Past GPL Enforcement
+	Typical case timeline
+	Success so far
+	What we've learned
+	Problems encountered
+	Future outlook
+	Thanks
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page 
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+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?
+		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
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+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
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Free Software and its role in computing
+
+	Free Software (aka Open Source Software) became popular with the advent of the internet
+	Used increasingly in any market
+		traditionally in the server area
+		more recently on the desktop area
+		but _large_ numbers of installations in the embedded market
+			router / gateway / firewalls
+			wireless access points
+			network attached storage
+			wireless phones
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+The Free Software development model
+
+	Distributed developers throughout the world
+	Contributions can come from anyone with required skills
+	'cooking pot economy'
+		everyone puts a small ingredient into the pot
+		because it's an immaterial pot, everyone gets a full pot
+	As a result, copyright of the resulting work is vastly distributed
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Free Software and it's licenses
+
+	It's important to note that it is about freedom of the user, not free beer
+	Big number of Free (and Open Source) licenses in use
+	However, significant number of important projects licensed under GNU GPL
+	Most commonly known example for GPL-covered code: The Linux OS Kernel
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%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
+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 und the scope of this license"
+
+	GPL allows "mere aggregation"
+		like a general-porpose GNU/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 GNU/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 itself a lot of time
+		Some source code was 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 study
+			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 (20+) of companies
+			sdome of which made significant donations to charitable organizations of the free software community
+		preliminary injunction against Sitecom, Sitecom also lost appeals case 
+		court decision of munich district court in Sitecom appeals case
+		a second preliminary injunction against one of Germanys largest technology firms
+		more settled cases (not public yet)
+		negotiating in more cases
+		public awareness 
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Cases so far (1/2)
+
+
+		Allnet GmbH
+		Siemens AG
+		Fujitsu-Siemens Computers GmbH
+		Axis A.B.
+		Securepoint GmbH
+		U.S.Robotics Germany GmbH
+		Netgear GmbH
+		Belkin Compnents GmbH
+		Asus GmbH
+		Gateprotect GmbH
+		Sitecom GmbH / B.V.
+		TomTom B.V.
+		Gigabyte Technologies GmbH
+		D-Link GmbH
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Cases so far (2/2)
+
+
+		Sun Deutschland GmbH
+		Open-E GmbH
+		Siemens AG (second case)
+		Deutsche Telekom AG
+		Hitachi Inc.
+		Tecom Inc.
+		ARP Datacon GmbH
+		Conceptronic B.V.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+What we've learned
+
+
+	Copyleft-style licenses can be enforced!
+	A lot of companies don't take Free Software licenses seriously
+		Even corporations with large legal departments who should know
+		Reasons unclear, probably the financial risk of infringement was considered less than the expected gains
+	The FUD spread about "GPL not holding up in court" has disappeared
+
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%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 more often
+		has to be made public in order to raise awareness
+
+	What about Copylefted Content (Creative Commons)
+		probably just a matter of time until CC-licensed works of art are infringed
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%page
+GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
+Problems of GPL Enforcement
+
+	Problems
+		distributed copyright
+			is an important safeguard
+			can make enforcement difficult, since copyright traditionally doesn't know cases with thousands of copyright holders
+			distribution of damages extremely difficult
+		the legal issue of having to do reverse engineering in order to prove copyright infringement(!)
+		only the copyright holder (in most cases the author) can do it
+		users discovering GPL'd software need to communicate those issues to all entitled parties (copyright holders)
+		infringers obfuscating and/or encrypting fres software as disguise
+
+	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
+Thanks
+
+	Thanks to
+		KNF
+			for first bringing me in contact with linux in 1994
+		Astaro AG
+			for sponsoring most of my netfilter work
+		Free Software Foundation
+			for the GNU Project 
+			for the GNU General Public License
+		Dr. Till Jaeger
+			for handling my legal cases
+
+%size 3
+	The slides of this presentation are available at http://www.gnumonks.org/
+
+	Further reading:
+%size 3
+	The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project
+%size 3
+	The Free Software foundation http://www.fsf.org/, http://www.fsf-europe.org/
+%size 3
+	The GNU Project http://www.gnu.org/
+%size 3
+	The netfilter homepage http://www.netfilter.org/
+%%	http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/04/05/31/1733229.shtml?tid=85&tid=4
+
+
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.pdf b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c81ac48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl-enforcement-ec2005.pdf
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.dvi b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.dvi
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b567a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.dvi
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.tex b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..10373b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/gpl.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,365 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper,10pt]{article}
+\pagestyle{myheadings}
+
+\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\topmargin}{0mm}
+\setlength{\topskip}{0mm}
+\setlength{\headheight}{0mm}
+\setlength{\textheight}{230mm}
+\setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}
+
+\markright{Appendix A:The GNU General Public License}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title{The GNU General Public License}
+\date{}
+
+\maketitle
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2, June 1991
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\bigskip
+
+59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
+
+\bigskip
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\bf\large Preamble}
+\end{center}
+
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
+share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
+make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public
+License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to
+any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free
+Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public
+License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.
+
+When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
+Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
+freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service
+if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
+that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;
+and that you know you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
+deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.  These
+restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  You
+must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And
+you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
+offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
+everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.  If
+the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
+recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
+problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
+reputations.
+
+Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
+We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
+individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
+proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
+be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+\newpage
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+
+%\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alpha{enumi}}
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+
+\item 
+
+This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
+placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
+terms of this General Public License.  The ``Program'', below, refers to
+any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
+the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
+work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
+modifications and/or translated into another language.  (Hereinafter,
+translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification''.)
+Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+\item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
+  code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
+  and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
+  and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
+  this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
+  recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
+may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+\item
+
+You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item 
+
+You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
+you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+\item
+
+You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+parties under the terms of this License.
+
+\item
+If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section 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 based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+\item
+You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
+allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+received the program in object code or executable form with such
+an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it.  For an executable work, 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.  However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+\item
+You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item
+You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+\item
+Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+\item
+If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+\item
+If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+\item
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+later version'', you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+\item
+If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
+for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law.  Except when
+otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
+provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
+or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
+merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.  The entire risk as
+to the quality and performance of the program is with you.  Should the
+program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
+repair or correction.}
+
+\item
+{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
+will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
+redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
+including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
+out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited
+to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
+you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
+programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
+possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+
+\end{document}
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/red-line b/2005/gpl-ec2005/red-line
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4e63da8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/red-line
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+thanks for invitation
+
+introduction about the speaker
+
+legal disclaimer
+
+free software and it's role in computing
+	increased use
+		not only server market
+		not only desktop market
+		but _large_ quantities in the embedded market
+			router / gateway / firewall
+			wireless acces points / bridges
+			network attached storagee
+
+free software development model
+	distributed developers throughout the world
+	contributions from anyone with required skills
+	as a result, distributed copyright in many projects
+
+free software and it's licenses
+	free software != public domain
+	free as in freedom, not as in beer
+	significant part covered by gpl license
+
+gpl revisited
+	terminology
+	revisiting
+	complete source code
+	derivative works
+	collective works
+	non-public modifications
+
+gpl violations
+	when do i violate the license
+	what do i risk
+
+past (until 2003) gpl enforcement
+	most of it quietly
+	in many cases handled by the FSF
+
+the linksys case
+
+typical enforcement timeline
+
+success so far
+
+
+summary / what we've learnt
+	a lot of companies don't take free software licenses seriously
+		even companies with large legal deprartments have problems
+		why is that? lack of information? financial risk not hard enough?
+		it's not different to any other software license of 3rd party components
+
+	the FUD spread by certain corporations 'can the gpl be enforced' has vanished
+
+problems of gpl enforcmeent
+	distributed copyright is a safeguard, but can make enforcement difficult
+	the need to do reverse engineering to proof the violation
+	infringing companies obfuscating or encrypting free software
+	legally difficult to claim your rights as customer of gpl infringing product
+	damages claims can be difficult due to distribution problem
+
+gpl enforcment future
+	I just wanted to set some examples
+	so many cases, further enforcement has to be done by organization
+	
diff --git a/2005/gpl-ec2005/short-abstract b/2005/gpl-ec2005/short-abstract
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ecf62b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2005/gpl-ec2005/short-abstract
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+A significant amount of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is covered under
+the GNU General Public License (GPL).  Up to about one year ago, this copyright
+licese was never contested in court, and there was no precendent on the
+enforcibility of it's so-called "copyleft" character.  This has changed since
+the Author of this Presentation (Harald Welte) obtained a preliminary
+injunction and a court order of the District Court of Munich (Germany) to
+enforce the GPL.  Harald will share his experience in legal enforcement of the
+GPL.