add slides for upcoming Korean public domain + FOSS conference

1 files changed, 299 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/2019/korea/gpl-germany.tex b/2019/korea/gpl-germany.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..519b6c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2019/korea/gpl-germany.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+\documentclass[11pt]{beamer}
+\usetheme{default}
+%\setbeamertemplate{frametitle}{}
+\newenvironment{myline}
+    %{\usebeamerfont{frametitle}\usebeamercolor[fg]{frametitle}\vfill\centering}
+    {\usebeamerfont{frametitle}\vfill\centering}
+    {\par\vfill}
+
+\usetheme{Warsaw}
+\usecolortheme{whale}
+
+\title{GNU GPL enforcement cases in Germany}
+%\subtitle{Subtitle}
+\author{Harald~Welte}
+\date[June 2019, Seoul/Korea]{Public Domain \& Open Source Conference, June 2019}
+\institute{gpl-violations.org}
+
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\begin{frame}
+\titlepage
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\begin{frame}{Outline}
+	\tableofcontents[hideallsubsections]
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\begin{frame}{About the speaker}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice
+	\item Free Software developer for more than 20 years
+	\item Used to work on the Linux kernel from 1999-2009
+	\item By coincidence among the first people enforcing the GNU GPL in court
+	\item Since 2009 developing FOSS in cellular communications (Osmocom)
+	\item Living and working in Berlin, Germany.
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{History: First GPL enforcement in German court}
+
+\begin{frame}{History leading to the case (2003)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Linux started to get used in consumer DSL/WiFi routers
+	\item 2003 Linksys WRT54G enforcement in US / FSF-led coalition
+	\item some dissatisfied at slow progress / little results
+	\item more similar devices are showing up in German market
+	\item I was head of netfilter/iptables development back then
+	\item companies disrespecting our development model made me very upset
+	\item I did some research on the legal situation and was looking for a competent lawyer
+	\item Luckily I found Dr. Till Jaeger, who had already published extensively on FOSS back then
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom (2004)}
+Timeline
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item March 18, 2004: Warning Letter to Sitecom
+	\item March 22, 2004: Sitecom asks for extension of deadline, granted by plaintiff
+	\item March 30, 2004: No declaration to cease+desist received
+	\item April 1, 2004: Request for grant of preliminary injunction filed
+	\item April 2, 2004: Injunction granted by district court Munich
+	\item April 13, 2004: Preliminary injunction served to Sitecom
+	\item April 20, 2004: Sitecom files appeal against injunction
+	\item May 19, 2004: Court issues ruling, upholding injunction
+\end{itemize}
+LG München, Az~21~O~6123/04
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom (2004)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Timeline reflects standard procedural code in copyright infringements in Germany
+	\item preliminary injunction can only be requested in {\em urgent} cases, which typically means {\em no less then 30 days after plaintiff knows about infringement}
+	\item short amount of time for declaration to cease and desist and fixing GPL compliance
+	\item if product is sold (or firmware downloadable) all over Germany, all courts are competent, plaintiff can chose
+	\item District court of Munich (LG München) didn't show any doubt about validity of GPL under German law
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom aftermath}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Sitecom did some half-hearted attempts at fixing that one first product we found
+	\item preliminary injunction is not on a single product, but on the software netfilter/iptables
+	\item Unfortunately, Sitecom didn't change their habits / processes
+	\item April 20, 2005: Sitecom has to pay 5000 EUR to the court for a GPL violation in another product (WL-111), infringing the preliminary injunction.
+	\item May 22, 2006: Found another incompliant product: Warning notice about WL-105i
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{After that first German case}
+more lawsuits
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Welte vs. Fortinet (2005)
+	\item Welte vs. D-Link (2006)
+	\item Welte vs. Skype (2008)
+	\item gpl-violations.org slows down from 2008 onwards
+	\item Welte vs. Fantec (2013)
+\end{itemize}
+many more out of court enforcements (hundreds) with companies ranging from Siemens to Sun
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{gpl-violations.org becomes dormant}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item I'm an engineer. Anything except writing code or designing electronics is a distraction
+	\item Legal work of license enforcement with gpl-violations.org took a lot of time
+	\item It was a great team working with Armijn Hejmel, Till Jaeger and colleagues
+	\item Ultimately, I am personally liable in all copyright lawsuits
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item Requires deep personal involvement in lots of details
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item We had successfully demonstrated to the industry the GPL is upheld by court, and GPL compliance matters
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item at least parts of the industry began to change their habits
+		\item mission accomplished
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item gpl-violations.org became dormant / inactive
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{}
+fast-forward to 2016
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Enforcement by Patrick McHardy}
+
+\begin{frame}{Patrick McHardy GPL enforcement caeses}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Patrick McHardy was another German Linux Kernel developer starting GPL enforcement
+	\item by coincidence he was also involved with netfilter/iptables
+	\item he started his enforcement around the time he stopped contributing actual code
+	\item enforcement process is similar to what was described before
+	\item unfortunately, enforcement doesn't seem to be compliance-centric but profit-driven
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Patrick McHardy GPL enforcement caeses}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Patrick secluded himself from Linux and netfilter developers
+	\item for many years he refuses to respond to any of our inquuries
+	\item his enforcement often seems to emphasize on minor infractions or grey areas like requiring a German translation of the GPL
+	\item he's not publishing his actions, but acting in secret
+	\item many assume he's largely financially motivated
+	\item suspended from netfilter team as a result
+	\item other netfilter core team members sign {\em principles of community oriented GPL enforcement}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{McHardy vs. Geniatech (2016-2018)}
+From a high level, pretty similar to other infringement cases
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item test purchase is made
+	\item warning notice is filed
+	\item no declaration to cease and desist
+	\item preliminary injunction applied for at LG Köln; granted (Az~14~O~188/17)
+	\item appeal against preliminary injunction turned down
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{The details matter}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Scope of preliminary injunction is very broad:
+	\item Defendant shall cease and desist from
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item ever publishing, selling, offering for download any version of Linux (whether Patrick McHardy has any copyright in that or not)
+		\item putting hyperlinks on their website to any version of Linux
+		\item asking users to download ant version of Linux
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Appeal at OLG Köln (2018)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item More than 1000 pages of filings of the parties (!)
+	\item Linux kernel development model makes McHardy {\em modifying author}, not {\em co-author}. 
+	\item modifying author can only ask for cease and desist on those portions he wrote, not entire work
+	\item McHardy did not sufficiently show what exactly his contributions were and how they were forming themselves copyrightable works
+	\item McHardy did not substantiate what copyrightable contributions he has made outside of netfilter/iptables
+	\item McHardy decided to withdraw his case at this point, avoiding the higher district court to ever get to issue a verdict on the case.
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Legal concept: Miturheber vs. Bearbeiterurheber}
+German copyright distinguishes between
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item {\em Miturheber} (co-author)
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item multiple authors plan and create a work together
+		\item any of the co-authors can claim cease+desist for the full work
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item {\em Bearbeiterurheber} (modifying author)
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item a pre-existing work gets edited/modified by another author
+		\item the modifying author can only claim cease+desist on his part
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+This turns out to be one of the more important legal formalities discussed in recent GPL enforcement cases.
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Enforcement by Christoph Hellwig}
+
+\begin{frame}{Hellwig vs VMware (2016-2019)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item not a classic (embedded) Linux GPL violation case
+	\item Linux kernel not used as a whole / as OS kernel
+	\item parts of Linux, such as SCSI-mid-layer, USB stack, radix tree and tons of device drivers used inside proprietary ESXi vmkernel
+	\item no preliminary injunction involved
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{First court case at LG Hamburg (Az~310~O~89/15)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item initial lack of understanding of the court on how the parts are pieced together
+	\item large focus on legal formalitiies such as standing
+	\item co-authorship (Miturheberschaft) vs.\ editor authorship (Bearbeiterurheberrecht)
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Second court case at OLG Hamburg  (Az~5~U~146/16)}
+Hearing on Nov. 28, 2018
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item court has difficulties understanding which functionalities / code Hellwig is basing his claims on
+	\item court states Hellwig cannot claim editing copyright (Bearbeiterurheberrecht) on Linux as a whole
+	\item court believes the ruling at the previous court is a valid ruling based on the filings made
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item editing copyright only on the part edited
+		\item no rights on the original program
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Second court case at OLG Hamburg  (Az~5~U~146/16)}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item general statements and pointers to public sources are insufficient to prove authorship/rights
+	\item the concrete copies of code sections must be pointed out
+	\item it is insufficient if only an expert witness can show something
+	\item in some of the code, copyright statements hint that co-authorship might exist, while the claims were all based on editing authorship
+	\item difficulties with "what is a work".  If the entire vmkernel+vmklinux and linux derived portions are one work, then Hellwig's parts are proportionally small.
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Second court (OLG Hamburg): Case dismissed}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item case was dismissed entirely based on formal grounds
+	\item court claims Hellwig didn't demonstrate clearly enough that his copyrighted work ended up in VMwares product
+	\item court didn't actually have to rule on the merits of the case
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Why is this happening all in Germany?}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item no copyright registration required
+	\item preliminary injunction must be applied for very quickly
+	\item preliminary injunction granted without hearing defendant
+	\item preliminary injunction doesn't require injunction bond
+	\item lots of precedent primarily due to the 2004 to 2008 cases
+	\item legal costs are regulated and not as insanely expensive as some other jurisdictions that shall not be named
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Further Reading}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item gpl-violations.org cases
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\tiny
+		\item \url{http://gpl-violations.org/} (News section)
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item McHardy cases
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\tiny
+		\item \url{https://www.netfilter.org/files/statement.pdf}
+		\item \url{https://netfilter.org/licensing.html}
+		\item \url{https://blog.fossa.io/patrick-mchardy-and-copyright-profiteering-44f7c28c0693/}
+		\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20180307-mchardy-gpl/}
+		\item \url{https://ifosslr.org/index.php/ifosslr/article/view/128/246}
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item Hellwig / VMware
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\tiny
+		\item \url{https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html}
+		\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20151029-vmware_gpl/}
+		\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20160225-vmware-gpl/}
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item List of judgements / verdicts (not only) in Germany
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\tiny
+		\item \url{https://ifross.github.io/ifrOSS/Cases}
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Thanks}
+Thanks for your attention.
+
+	You have a General Public License to ask questions now :)
+\end{frame}
+
+\end{document}