Comment by jwr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwr | Hacker News Reader

The FSF should take a more active role in GPL violations overall. This is by far not the only one. See for example how Drobo completely ignores requests for source code, while spreading FUD about proprietary drivers:

http://www.drobospace.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=935&...

I'm not a fan of bashing Apple at every occasion, but a shakedown of phone software licensing would not hurt — it would actually clarify the situation (both for iPhone OS and Android) and perhaps force companies to change the terms of service somewhat.

UPDATE: I double-checked and since my last request they actually posted an E-mail address where you can supposedly request the code. I did request the code and I'm waiting to see what happens.

Also, for those who think this is fanaticism: I'm doing this, because the DroboShare is unreliable and lost my data by corrupting the entire Drobo volume. I need the code, because I want to check whether Drobo actually improved the Linux HFS+ code or not (I suspect not).

The Drobo forums are only available to paying customers, but I did come across the following page;

http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/434

Seems you can request the code by e-mail. No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though.

No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though.

Marketing.

The FSF does as much enforcement as it has resources to do.

If someone would like to see more FSF actions, I would suggest they donate to the FSF, volunteer time to the FSF or release code under the GPL.

Donation page: https://my.fsf.org/donate

I will not donate to the FSF until I clearly understand how it works (charter/bylaws). I requested this information once and was told that it is too costly to get it into digital form.

For the same reason, I am against assigning copyrights to the FSF. I would like to be sure that once someone takes over from Richard Stallman, FSF under new leadership will not be able to do things to my code that I wouldn't want done.

> The FSF should take a more active role in GPL violations overall.

I belive they can't really do anything unless they own the copyright, as they do with GNU Go. The Linux HFS+ code is probably owned by whoever wrote it for example.

There are actions they can take other than suing the violator themselves. They can contact license violators to try to reach diplomatic solutions, and they can offer resources such as legal counseling for other rights-holders. They don't have to force every violator to cough up the code or face putative damages, they just have to generally make it known that violating the license is more inconvenient than following it.

And ... indeed, that's what they do, as described by ... the article and all their other literature...

The FSF is only in a position to "go after" Apple because it is the copyright holder of GNU Go. It does not hold copyright on Linux.

The free software foundation takes the lead in GPL whether they hold the copyright or not - for example, the Linksys enforcement.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43996.html

(article written from a 'how much can you get away violating the GPL' - not my feelings but it make, the FSF is who comes after you).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com