A fascinating story today in Forbes about the Free Software Foundation and their aggressive enforcement of the GPL.
In essence, the story describes the enforcement action by FSF in connection with alleged inclusion of GPL'd code in a Linksys Wi-Fi router sold by Cisco (which recently acquired Linksys) without adhering to the GPL provisions (which require distribution of source code with the executable code, among other things). The story talks about the "threats" made by FSF in this regard, during negotiations with Cisco and Broadcom (which is the supplier of the actual chip used in the router).
The whole tone of the article is about how such aggressive GPL/copyright enforcement can be hurting the free software movement itself, although the article is not very clear on how exactly that happens, except to suggest that companies might be "scared away" from using open source software, because of the threats, and allegations of GPL violation that might ensue. It looks to me as if the entire article is based on the false premise that GPL/Open Source/Free software (all of which terms have been used almost interchangeably, by stating rather misleadingly that "the FSF controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs.") is copyright-free, in the public domain, and free for anyone to do whatever they like with it. Continues inside . . .
This is one of the central misconceptions that most people have internalized about open source software - just because they don't have to pay money for it, and it is freely distributable, people tend to believe that they can do anything they want with it. In reality, open source software, and GPL'd open source software in particular, takes advantage of strong copyright laws and enforcement, to make software as free (as in freely available to the maximum number of people, not free as in beer, to borrow a famous phrase) and open (for viewing, modification and improvement) as possible. Broadly speaking, any use of GPL'd software that violates the tenets of the GPL's philosophy (and therefore it's license terms), such as distributing GPL'd software without source code, would not be allowed and the FSF would step in to take "enforcement action".
The article rather snidely suggests that the FSF is ideologically driven and is using the GPL to spread open source software, and using the GPL terms to "force open" as much closed software as possible. Well..DUH. Of course the FSF is ideologically driven and it wants to spread open source software and reduce usage of closed software.
There is also the suggestion that GPL enforcement is basically a money-making tool for the FSF, since they collect money from the people they "bust" for GPL violation or grateful people whose GPL'd products they've helped to protect.
Even if that's true, so what? Do either of these things mean they're not entitled to enforce the terms of the GPL and the copyright in the work? Or that they can't use the legal system to achieve their ideological goals?
The thing I don't like about this article is the implicit assumption that all these happy, leftist free software developers are giving away their work for free, and therefore, it is somehow dishonourable, or sleazy for them to seek to enforce the licence terms for their software. Wielding that kind of legal stick should (supposedly) be left to the Big Bad Corporations who write closed software and want to protect.
That's a mentality that we need to change. Why should only the "bad guys" carry sticks?