https://lwn.net/Articles/695014/
> Any early successes of troll-like behavior is thus short-lived and evaporates as soon as new Linux adopters learn to adapt quickly with compliant behaviors.
(Claims bkuhn.)
Great. Let's encourage "trolling". Successes of principled behavior haven't led to such quick adaptation.
No surprise. I think of copyleft as regulation, and many regulations need steep fines for non-compliance to encourage proactive compliance. Copyleft doubly so, since it is a private mechanism that has no publicly funded regulators whose job it is to enforce.
I know Conservancy can't explicitly encourage trolling. But I'm hopeful talking about principled enforcement increases awareness that trolling is a possibility, and many copy McHardy.
> Any early successes of troll-like behavior is thus short-lived and evaporates as soon as new Linux adopters learn to adapt quickly with compliant behaviors.
(Claims bkuhn.)
Great. Let's encourage "trolling". Successes of principled behavior haven't led to such quick adaptation.
No surprise. I think of copyleft as regulation, and many regulations need steep fines for non-compliance to encourage proactive compliance. Copyleft doubly so, since it is a private mechanism that has no publicly funded regulators whose job it is to enforce.
I know Conservancy can't explicitly encourage trolling. But I'm hopeful talking about principled enforcement increases awareness that trolling is a possibility, and many copy McHardy.
bthall likes this.
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.