70% of companies on the Linux Foundation Board are GPL violators.,(We list them all.) - From Lunduke

Last month, we learned that The Linux Foundation has continued to
decrease their yearly spending on Linux -- down to just 2% in 2023.
With spending on non-Linux project skyrocketing.

But the question is... why? Why is a foundation created primarily to
support Linux -- and with "Linux" as the key part of it's name --
clearly moving away from Linux?

To help solve that question, let's look at the people who make the
decisions at The Linux Foundation: The Board Members.

Who are the members of The Linux Foundation Board of Directors?

The majority of Board Member seats at The Linux Foundation are purchased
by companies -- If a company pays enough, they get a seat on the board.
A pretty simple, and lucrative, arrangement. One that has resulted in
The Linux Foundation bringing in roughly a quarter of a Billion dollars
in 2023.

Interesting side note: Until 2016, The Linux Foundation had two Board
Member seats which were elected by the individual members (including the
average Linux enthusiasts who donated to The Linux Foundation). These
were the "Community Representation" seats. But, in 2016, those were
removed entirely. -- making all Board seats now only held by corporations.

There are, within the foundation, 24 seats on the Board -- representing
17 distinct companies (some companies have multiple seats).

Microsoft, Meta, Sony, Oracle, Samsung... lots of big names in here.

I wonder... how many of those companies have violated the GPL?

Linux uses the GPL, right? It would be interesting to see which of
these companies -- controlling The Linux Foundation -- respect the
license that Linux, itself, uses. While that wouldn't paint the whole
picture... it would certainly be quite... telling.

So, The Lunduke Journal dug deep and checked out all of these companies
-- to see which of them are violators of the GPL.
The Results: It's not good

After an exhaustive round of research, we now know -- exactly -- which
of the companies controlling The Linux Foundation have violated the GPL.
And we've outlined every single one below. Lawsuits, complaints...
the works. And, as the kids say, "we bring the receipts."

But first, ask yourself: What percentage of the Linux Foundation Board
consists of companies which knowingly violate the GPL?

What would be a reasonable percentage? It should be small, right?
Maybe between 0% and 10%?

Well. It's not. It's a very, very big number.

Ridiculously big.

I mean. Wow. Brace yourself.
Seriously. Over 70%.

Yeah, you're reading that chart right.

Over 70% of these companies violate the GPL.

What does that tell us about why spending in Linux has decreased? And
what does that tell us about the future direction of The Linux
Foundation? That remains to be seen (there are a lot of other variables
at play)... but it sure doesn't paint a "pro-GPL" or "pro-Linux" picture.

Not Violating the GPL is not difficult

One thing worth noting is that -- in most cases -- complying with the
terms of the GPL (or BSD... or most other licenses) is pretty straight
forward.

If a you use GPL'd code... publish it, when requested, to people who are
using it. And disclose that you're using that code (along with what the
licenses are).

That gets you 99% of the way there. Pretty doggone easy.

Which means that a company -- with massive resources -- who fights hard
to not comply with the GPL... is doing so on purpose. At least most of
the time.

Below you will find all of the companies with seats on The Linux
Foundation board -- and wether or not they are a violator of the GPL.

VMWare - Violator

VMWare has spent several years knowingly violating -- and profiting from
violations of -- the GPL license. This resulted in legal action
involving The Software Freedom Conservancy (Hellwig v. VMWare)

Sony - Violator

Remember the Sony Rootkit? Turns out, that was using GPL'd code (and
violating the license). Sony also published Playstation 2 games using
GPL'd code (and violated the license).

Intel - Violator

This is a rather interesting case. Intel ships most of their modern
CPU's with the built in "IME" (Intel Management Engine) -- which is,
essentially, a mini-computer within your CPU. IME is running a variant
of MINIX with a number of other pieces of software installed. It is
known that Intel violates the terms of the BSD license used by MINIX.
It is also known that this version of MINIX is running several servers
(including a web server). Are those GPL, BSD, or MIT licensed? It is
unclear... but, in almost all cases, Intel would be violating the terms
of the license by not disclosing the license and copyright.

Huawei - Violator

Huawei has a long history of refusing to supply source code for GPL'd
software used in their hardware.

Fujitsu - Violator

Fujitsu (and related companies) have had multiple counts of GPL
violations -- including out of court settlements for said violations.

Tencent - Violator

The China-based mega corporation, Tencent, was sued in court -- and lost
-- for violating the GPL.

Meta - Not Violator

No known GPL violations.

Qualcomm - Violator

Qualcomm is notorious, within the FOSS world, for being openly hostile
towards the mere idea of "open source" -- which makes it more than a
little peculiar that they have a seat on The Linux Foundation Board.
And there are examples of their direct violation of GPL'd source.
Hitachi / Renesas - Not Violator

No known GPL violations.

Panasonic - Violator

GPL violations by Panasonic resulted in a $100 Million lawsuit -- which
Panasonic settled out of court

Microsoft - Violator

Not including the massive GPL violations of Microsoft's Copilot (which
copies and re-uses GPL'd code without including the license or
copyright) -- Microsoft has violated the GPL numerous times. Including
in Windows releases. In some cases, Microsoft has remedied their GPL
violations. Other times... they have refused to do so.

Samsung - Violator

Samsung is a regular violator of the GPL -- including a lawsuit from the
Software Freedom Law Center, and refusal to release source code used in
their devices.

Ericsson - Not Violator

While Ericsson has a concerning history of using patents to bring
lawsuits against companies using Linux, The Lunduke Journal can find no
example of GPL violation.

Amazon - Not Violator

While Amazon does the absolute bare minimum to remain in compliance with
source code licensing -- such as releasing just enough source code for
otherwise completely locked down devices to remain in compliance -- The
Lunduke Journal can find no instance of blatant GPL violation by the
company.

NEC - Not Violator

No known GPL violations.

Red Hat - Violator

It may seem startling to some, but Red Hat -- one of the largest
supporters of Linux based systems development -- is a repeat violator of
the GPL. And there remains signficant questions about recent
modifications to Red Hat's source code availability which marks a
significant shift away from publicly available, open source software --
and may, in some cases, violate the GPL.

Oracle - Violator

Software licensing has long been a contentious issue for Oracle (in
multiple ways) -- but, when it comes to GPL licensing, the most well
known example is the ZFS + Linux issue where, yes, Oracle violated the GPL.

--
@RabidPedagog

Well, where are the stupid trolls *cough* -highhorse *cough* to assert
that the actions of these companies reflects poorly upon FOSS and/or
its advocates?

It doesn't, of course. Companies trying to get-away with unethical
and illegal actions are as common as the evil businessman himself, and
using FOSS in its products doesn't make a company any better or worse
than any other company.

--
"Microsoft chooses to break the law when it suits them. Does that make
them a bad corporation?" - Oliver Wrong

It doesn't, but it is nice if the company in question uses it as
intended. As it is, many of them don't.

Actually, a problem that the uncited article has is that it doesn't list the dates of these
transgressions.

As such, how many are being condemned for a possibly isolated violation that was
potentially made a decade ago, after which they cleaned up their act? It could have
even been so long enough ago that the violator wasn't even a board member yet.


-hh

Fair enough. The fact remains that the transgressions happened and there
has neither been an apology nor a resolution.

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative

Corporate lawyers will fight tooth & nail to avoid “apology” declarations. Often will agree
to larger cash settlements in order to obtain a “no responsibility” caveat in the settlement.
Ditto for avoiding having individuals named as culpable. As such, it’s not that great of a metric to apply.

-hh

Good points!

--
"These Linux vermin will sell their own mother in order to promote
Linux." - Flathead