diff options
author | Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> | 2016-09-30 02:15:50 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> | 2016-12-27 11:13:46 +0100 |
commit | 1c59a2545b64c86f2bef2150c3fb824269813efb (patch) | |
tree | 7892c04a3052a1aebecb32373e7c0ea9c09c792c /2016/open-compliance-jp | |
parent | c91fea6d73088cb9058c0cea8fa6a6d72e538717 (diff) |
abstract for japan
Diffstat (limited to '2016/open-compliance-jp')
-rw-r--r-- | 2016/open-compliance-jp/abstract.txt | 21 |
1 files changed, 21 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2016/open-compliance-jp/abstract.txt b/2016/open-compliance-jp/abstract.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..45178ed --- /dev/null +++ b/2016/open-compliance-jp/abstract.txt @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +Strategies in practical GPL enforcement + +Enforcement of copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL has always been a +somewhat controversial topic. Some people are not in favor of +enforcement at all (but then, why choose the GPL and not a permissive +license?). Other people have less inhibitions in enforcing the +license. But then this raises the next questions? Enforcement using +which strategy? Enforcement using which methods? The Linux Kernel +developer community has recently re-fueled that debate on the +ksummit-discuss mailing list. + +Ultimately, most projects and developers are looking for the +downstream developers and companies to participate in a collaborative +development model. The copyleft principle is just a legal "hack" to +codify some part of that based on copyright. As a result, license +compliance is not an end in itself, but the very bare legal minimum of +what needs to be done when engaging in (particularly +corporate/commercial) re-use of Free Software. + +This talk will look at the different (GPL) license enforcement +approaches and present their advantages and disadvantages. |