@alcinnz @streetlight well regarding that "legal support against GPL violations", #sfconservancy doesn't even respond to reports of violations. Do they only support copyright holders?
@resist1984 @alcinnz @streetlight Conservancy's staff are very busy. Only copyright holders can enforce copyright licenses so I understand why they wouldn't want to spend their limited time responding to every email explaining that.
@be @streetlight @alcinnz The copyright holder of the Linux kernel is #sfconservancy themselves, no? I'm not clear on why they would disregard cases where a large company distributes a product that runs the kernel, who then refuses requests for the source code.
@resist1984 @streetlight @alcinnz Linux doesn't do copyright assignment; individual contributors retain the copyright. Conservancy has worked with some Linux contributors to enforce copyleft, but unfortunately there are way way more copyleft violations out there than one small nonprofit can deal with.
@be @resist1984 @streetlight Sounds like something a group calling themselves "The Linux Foundation" should probably focus on, no?
/s
@alcinnz @streetlight @be ah, right I was confusing #sfconservancy with The Linux Foundation. i've heard that Torvalds & The Linux Foundation jointly hold the kernel copyright, and it's well known that Torvalds is allergic to court actions. This effectively renders even a strong license flimsy.
@resist1984 @alcinnz @streetlight I think you may be confusing the Linux trademark with the copyright of the Linux code, a confusion lawyers have intentionally created by promoting the ideology of "intellectual property".
@be @streetlight @alcinnz the fact that companies are distributing products that use the linux kernel and then refuse requests for the code essentially weakens the freedom that consumers are led to believe they have.