Re: Meta-question on GPL compliance of this activity

[Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>]

On 5/24/19 9:07 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 
> Not to sidetrack discussion but I don't see how they're a barrier to
> *true* compliance specifically for Linux. If you have the complete
> corresponding source code for the Linux kernel, and you just assume
> (as some of us do) it's licensed under GPLv2 and provide the source
> code and chances are you'll be in compliance. And most noncompliant
> Linux distributors are noncompliant because they aren't distributing
> the source code (and thus they have nothing to run scanning tools on
> or whatever).
> 
> Nevertheless I see a more general (beyond the Linux kernel) benefit to
> adoption of legal notices in source code that can more easily be
> understood by tools, and GPL-licensed projects in particular pose a
> challenge to changing practices around source code license notices.
> Which is partly why I am interested in and helping out a bit with this
> work.

Sure, by "barrier" I didn't mean "impossible", just that it's more
difficult to comply if you aren't sure what licenses apply, and your
scanning tools are giving you garbled results.

> Sounds like a good suggestion. Perhaps alternatively or in addition, a
> good faith effort can be undertaken to attempt to get licensor (more
> specifically, nominal-copyright-holder) consent for these changes. It
> doesn't have to be perfect or rushed. Was this idea considered but
> abandoned? Not long ago Thomas asked me about a number of source files
> with Red Hat copyrights, such as the ones that said "GPL'd" which
> seemed particularly to irk him :) It seems like at this point you are
> all giving up on the idea of checking with nominal copyright holders
> ... out of frustration or impatience I guess?

I've seen enough projects waste years of human-hours on this, that it
seems reasonable to me to limit this activity to the really questionable
notices.

Allison