We present a brief introduction to the work that FSF does to enforce the GPL and defend the freedoms granted by Free Software.

In this case study, we consider one of the most complex and longest-running violations that FSF has handled. Company A distributed a derivative work of the GNU Complier Collection (GCC) without complete corresponding source, and refused to distribute any source at all to anyone who was not their direct customer. We follow the slow movement toward compliance and explain how FSF deals with sometimes belligerent violators.

In this case study, we consider a contrasting violation to Case A. Company B, who sold a complete GNU/Linux distribution, had worked hard to be in compliance, but we had nevertheless found an infraction in their compliance efforts. We explain how smoothly violations of this type can be resolved and the process that an otherwise friendly violator can expect.

In this case study, we present a violation where an entire embedded GNU/Linux distribution was included in a consumer electronic device. We consider the problems faced regarding kernel modules for device drivers for government-regulated hardware, and cases where both an upstream provider and a downstream distributor are in violation on separate matters.

In this case study, we consider how to handle the inevitable violations that can occur from a company that is generally committed to doing Free Software as a regular part of its business, but — due to experimentation with new cutting edge business models, or because of mere oversights — has occasional GPL violations or near-violations.

After discussing the details of the various archetypes of GPL compliance efforts undertaken by FSF, we generalize what we have learned to advise on good practices to build a product from start to finish in compliance with GPL, and how to build internal policies to assure that your client or company is never faced with a violation report.

An attorney's ethical duties run to not just their clients, but to potential clients and the general public as well. Pro bono representation of free software clients not only conforms with the principles set forth by most Bar Associations, but also provides many other benefits to an attorney. Once a client is retained, the duty of loyalty attaches and conflicts, be they direct, indirect, or political, should be identified and handled.

Differing ethical issues arise in the context of counseling a client who is a free software licensor as opposed to one who is a free software licensee. Further still, representing a client who is both licensor and licensee presents a combination of all of these issues. Compliance investigation and enforcement strategies must be implemented in accordance with both the duty of loyalty and the duty of honesty. Likewise, performing exposure abatement while also defending against charges of infringement may pose problems within the attorney-client relationship. The ethical considerations relevant to each of these situations will be presented and discussed.

Free software counseling is but one specialty within the realm of intellectual property counseling in general. A review of various topics of more general application, but with special relevance to free software counseling, will be given along with a discussion of the reasons why and ways in which such issues arise when representing free software clients. Patent prosecution and governing rules considerations are two such topics.