From fca59bea770346cf1c1f9b0e00cb48a61b44a8f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:00:20 +0100
Subject: import of old now defunct presentation slides svn repo

---
 2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex | 245 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 245 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex

(limited to '2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex')

diff --git a/2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex b/2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0170796
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2011/gpl_enforcement-kr2011/gpl_enforcement.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
+% $Header: /cvsroot/latex-beamer/latex-beamer/solutions/conference-talks/conference-ornate-20min.en.tex,v 1.7 2007/01/28 20:48:23 tantau Exp $
+
+\documentclass{beamer}
+
+% This file is a solution template for:
+
+% - Talk at a conference/colloquium.
+% - Talk length is about 20min.
+% - Style is ornate.
+
+
+
+% Copyright 2004 by Till Tantau <tantau@users.sourceforge.net>.
+%
+% In principle, this file can be redistributed and/or modified under
+% the terms of the GNU Public License, version 2.
+%
+% However, this file is supposed to be a template to be modified
+% for your own needs. For this reason, if you use this file as a
+% template and not specifically distribute it as part of a another
+% package/program, I grant the extra permission to freely copy and
+% modify this file as you see fit and even to delete this copyright
+% notice. 
+
+
+\mode<presentation>
+{
+  \usetheme{Warsaw}
+  % or ...
+
+  \setbeamercovered{transparent}
+  % or whatever (possibly just delete it)
+}
+
+
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+% or whatever
+
+\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
+% or whatever
+
+\usepackage{times}
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
+% Or whatever. Note that the encoding and the font should match. If T1
+% does not look nice, try deleting the line with the fontenc.
+
+
+\title{GNU GPL License Compliance}
+
+\subtitle
+{Current issues and Outlook}
+
+\author{Harald Welte}
+
+\institute
+{gpl-violations.org\\gnumonks.org\\hmw-consulting.de}
+% - Use the \inst command only if there are several affiliations.
+% - Keep it simple, no one is interested in your street address.
+
+\date[September 2011] % (optional, should be abbreviation of conference name)
+{September 2011}
+% - Either use conference name or its abbreviation.
+% - Not really informative to the audience, more for people (including
+%   yourself) who are reading the slides online
+
+\subject{Embedded Linux}
+% This is only inserted into the PDF information catalog. Can be left
+% out. 
+
+
+
+% If you have a file called "university-logo-filename.xxx", where xxx
+% is a graphic format that can be processed by latex or pdflatex,
+% resp., then you can add a logo as follows:
+
+% \pgfdeclareimage[height=0.5cm]{university-logo}{university-logo-filename}
+% \logo{\pgfuseimage{university-logo}}
+
+
+
+% Delete this, if you do not want the table of contents to pop up at
+% the beginning of each subsection:
+%\AtBeginSubsection[]
+%{
+%  \begin{frame}<beamer>{Outline}
+%    \tableofcontents[currentsection,currentsubsection]
+%  \end{frame}
+%}
+
+
+% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
+% the following command: 
+
+%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}
+
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \titlepage
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Outline}
+  \tableofcontents
+  % You might wish to add the option [pausesections]
+\end{frame}
+
+
+% Structuring a talk is a difficult task and the following structure
+% may not be suitable. Here are some rules that apply for this
+% solution: 
+
+% - Exactly two or three sections (other than the summary).
+% - At *most* three subsections per section.
+% - Talk about 30s to 2min per frame. So there should be between about
+%   15 and 30 frames, all told.
+
+% - A conference audience is likely to know very little of what you
+%   are going to talk about. So *simplify*!
+% - In a 20min talk, getting the main ideas across is hard
+%   enough. Leave out details, even if it means being less precise than
+%   you think necessary.
+% - If you omit details that are vital to the proof/implementation,
+%   just say so once. Everybody will be happy with that.
+
+\begin{frame}{About the speaker}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Linux user since 1994
+\item Linux kernel development since 1999
+\item GNU GPL license enforcement since 2003
+\item IT security expert, network protocol security
+\item Board-level Electrical Engineering
+\item System-level Software for PPC, ARM, x86
+\item IANAL, but companies not complying with the license forced me to spend lots of time with legal issues
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\section{What happened so far}
+
+\subsection{Historical development}
+
+\begin{frame}{Historical development}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item 1970ies: Softare becomes copyrightable
+	\item 1980ies: GNU project, GPLv1
+	\item 1990ies: Linux kernel, GPLv2, servers
+	\item 2000s: Linux and FOSS is everywhere
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{FOSS is everywhere}
+
+\begin{frame}{Linux and Free Software (FOSS) everywhere}
+\begin{figure}[h]
+\centering
+\includegraphics[width=100mm]{linux_netfilter_singapore_entertainment.jpg}
+\end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+
+\subsection{GPL enforcement}
+
+\begin{frame}{GPL enforcement}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Before 2003: Mostly Free Software Foundation
+	\item 2003-now: gpl-violations.org (Europe), ~ 200 cases
+	\item 2008-now: SFLC (United States)
+	\item publicly invisible enforcement
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item e.g. MySQL (dual-licensing)
+		\item e.g. Asterisk (dual-licensing)
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Fewer blatant violations}
+
+\begin{frame}{Fewer blatant GPL violations}
+In recent years,
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item most companies understand they have to care about compliance
+	\item most products ship with written offer, license text
+	\item some form of source code is provided
+\end{itemize}
+so where's the problem?
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Problem with current source code offers}
+The problem is:
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item source code is often incorrect
+	\item source code is often incomplete
+	\item source code is often missing for firmware updates
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{The License is a tool, not an end in itself!}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item GPL created by demand from Engineers, not Lawyers
+	\item Idea: Protect freedom of code and users
+	\item Community based, collaborative development
+	\item Industry should think about how they engange with the
+community in a productive way, {\em beyond mere license compliance}
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{New interesting legal case in Germany}
+\begin{frame}{New interesting legal case in Germany}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item DSL router vendor (AVM) is using GPL code (Linux kernel, etc.)
+	\item 3rd party company (Cybits) is creating additional software to be
+installed onto the DSL router
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item Only GPL licensed components are modified
+	\end{itemize}
+	\item AVM sues Cybits over {\em modification of its firmware}
+	\item gpl-violations.org intervenes on defendant's side
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{AVM ./. Cybits}
+Significance of this {\em AVM ./. Cybits} case
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item GPL was created to enable and encourage innovation
+	\item Innovation can not be restricted to vendor
+	\item Everyone (customer, 3rd parties, ...) have right to make and distribute modified versions
+	\item Levels the playing field, encourages competition, prevents monopolies
+	\item Homebrew 3rd party firmware projects like OpenWRT, Cyanogenmod are widely used
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Outlook}
+
+\begin{frame}{Outlook}
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item
+      Blatant GPL violations in embedded devices are declining, but are likely to continue due to lack of skill or negligence.
+    \item
+      We'll see more {\em derivative works} types of GPL violations, and we'll see actual legal enforcement and precedent in this area over the next years.
+    \item
+      Stronger copyright protection demanded by content industry will also mean stronger protection for FOSS licenses.  Imagine GPL enforcement with {\em three strikes} law in France ?!?
+    \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\end{document}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

