In a related thread https://lwn.net/Articles/694906/ bkuhn writes:
> If we did focus on money, we could easily line up an array of less-than-savvy violators, demand funds, not worry about whether the users ever got source code, and have a reliable revenue generator. We don't do that because (a) it's not the intention of the GPL, (b) it's not in the public good, and (c) does not help users of Free Software.
(b) and (c) are false if troll-like behavior causes new adopters to "adapt quickly with compliant behaviors".
> We do think there should be a financial penalty for violating the GPL; I've said so in my talks for at least a decade, and the Principles say the same. The question is what is the priority: revenue or compliance?
Are they not complementary priorities? Could not prioritizing revenue lead to more overall compliance than prioritizing compliance?
Not for Conservancy to pursue, but again, I hope such messaging spurs others to see opportunity.
> If we did focus on money, we could easily line up an array of less-than-savvy violators, demand funds, not worry about whether the users ever got source code, and have a reliable revenue generator. We don't do that because (a) it's not the intention of the GPL, (b) it's not in the public good, and (c) does not help users of Free Software.
(b) and (c) are false if troll-like behavior causes new adopters to "adapt quickly with compliant behaviors".
> We do think there should be a financial penalty for violating the GPL; I've said so in my talks for at least a decade, and the Principles say the same. The question is what is the priority: revenue or compliance?
Are they not complementary priorities? Could not prioritizing revenue lead to more overall compliance than prioritizing compliance?
Not for Conservancy to pursue, but again, I hope such messaging spurs others to see opportunity.