Proposal: Minor amendment re Compensation

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

David Fligor wrote on last Thursday, first quoting the Principles:
> "Copyright holders (or their designated agent) therefore are
> reasonable to request compensation for the cost of their time
> providing the compliance education that accompanies any constructive
> enforcement action."

That existing text isn't specific about who the designated agent is,
specifically because we didn't want to include a (surely incomplete)
laundry list of possible designated agents.  Is an attorney working on
behalf of a client (who's a copyright holder) not considered a
"designated agent" of the copyright holder?  Is there some legal
definition of "designated agent" that's concerning you, such that it's
narrower than a non-lawyer's (broad) understanding of that phrase?

... then David commented:
> Why should those who are willing and brave enough to bring
> community-oriented enforcement risk being sharply criticized by the
> community for asking for an amount that pays for the time of those
> involved?

I generally agree with that sentiment, but mitigating the risk of
criticism remains difficult.  There are many companies and individuals
who oppose GPL enforcement in any form, and will gladly just spread
false rumors to promote their agenda.  I admit that simply endorsing the
Principles won't actually help with that in the short term.

For example, as Karen and I said in our recent blog post, Conservancy
has not receive revenue for GPL enforcement since 2012 -- even to get
our costs covered!  Yet, we're routinely criticized.  Many prominent
organizations refuse to believe us when we say that our revenue from
enforcement remains minuscule, refuse to even look at the public data,
and then consistently spread lies about how we're a "GPL monitizer".

If you enforce the GPL, you are going to get accused of avarice even if
your motives are pure and you follow the Principles.  However, the basic
rule of "compliance first, reimbursement of costs second" is the true
litmus test to dissuade such accusations, and the Principles help the
public differentiate the different forms of GPL enforcement.

In other words, minor tweaking of that part of the text won't achieve
what you're trying to prevent.  My suggestion is to make your books on
enforcement completely open (possibly with the names of the violators
redacted, to address other parts of the Principles).  Transparency is
the only real solution to mitigate the issue of your concern.

Specifically, transparency, in coordination with an endorsement of the
Principles, will (long-term) remove the "they're only in it for the
money" attacks from the arsenal of anti-copyleft folks.  This is why I
believe we question the activities and motives of any GPL enforcer who
both refuses to endorse the Principles or even discuss them publicly.

In that regard, David, I really thank you for your willingness to
discuss publicly why you and/or your clients haven't endorsed the
Principles yet and hopefully my email above helps deal with that issue.


Tangentially, I also wrote on LWN about how "GPL monetizing" isn't even
a likely to happen long-term anyway: https://lwn.net/Articles/695014/

You all may also want this link [0] to the LWN article on which I'm
commenting on: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/694890/4116b9d560e1aea1/

[0] https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#slinks
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn
President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter