For more information about GPLv3 and how to participate, see our + GPLv3 project page.
+ +The following is a transcript of Richard Stallman's presentation + made at + the third + international GPLv3 conference, organised by FSFE in Barcelona. +
+ +Please support work such as this by + joining the Fellowship of FSFE, + and by encouraging others to do so.
+ +Richard Stallman launched + the GNU project in 1983, + and with it the Free + Software movement. Stallman is the president of FSF - a sister + organisation of FSFE.
+ +The speech was made in English.
+ + ++[1:03] +
+ ++ Richard Stallman: When should I start? +
+ ++ Sean Daly: Whenever you're ready +
+ ++Well, I guess [pauses 3 seconds]... I'll start now. +
+ + +[Section: What is a Free Software licence]
+ ++The most important thing to know about any version of the GNU General +Public License, or "GNU GPL", is that it's a Free Software licence. +This is crucial to understanding it. The purpose of the GNU GPL is to +assure user's freedom, because the goal of the Free Software movement +is the liberation of cyberspace. +
+ ++"Free Software" means that the users have four essential freedoms. +Freedoms that every user of software should have. +
+ ++If you have all four of these freedoms, then the program is Free +Software, for you. If one of these freedoms is substantially missing, +then the program is proprietary software, XXX "privativo", because it +denies the users these essential freedoms. A "privativo" program is a +social mechanism for subjugating its users, which is what makes it +unethical and anti-social, and that's the reason why I launched a +movement to put an end to that practice of keeping people in +subjection. +
+ ++[3:53] +
+ +[Section: Copyleft]
+ ++Free Software respects these four freedoms for users. It's easy to +write a simple Free Software licence that basically says "you can do +anything you want". The X Window System traditionally was distributed +under such a licence, but this is not the best way to liberate all the +users because one thing that some people do when they get software +under such a licence is they make a modified version or improved +version and they distribute it as software privativo, and when that +happens, their users do not have the four freedoms. They are +subjugated. So this is a practice that undermines the freedom of the +whole community. Therefore, having seen this, at the beginning of the +GNU project, I conceived a way of preventing this problem from +occuring. +
+ ++This method we called copyleft or "izquierdo +copia" because +you can think of it as copyright flipped over. Whereas copyright is +typically used for software developers to subjugate the users, to keep +them divided and helpless, copyleft protects all the users and makes +sure they are free, and the way it does this is by forbidding the +middle men from taking away the freedom from the subsequent users. +Copyleft says whenever the code reaches you, the freedom must also +reach you, along with the code, and it does this by saying that nobody +can put himself in between you and the developer to strip off the +freedom and pass along to you a proprietary program. +
+ +[Section: History of copyleft]
+ ++The GNU GPL is a descendant of the first copyleft licence. I wrote +the first copyleft licence in 1985 and it was called the GNU Emacs +General Public License, and I put it on GNU Emacs. It was a licence +that said "this is the licence for GNU Emacs", and here's how it +worked, it said "GNU Emacs is copyrighted," now, copyright law says +that if something is copyrighted, people are not allowed to copy and +modify it but then the licence said "you are authorised to copy this, +you're authorised to publish, you are authorised to modify this, you +are authorised to publish your modified versions, but there's a +condition" and the condition is you must respect the same freedoms for +everyone else. So the condition says "whatever version you +distribute, must be available as source code and must carry this same +licence". That is copyleft. When you say "you can change this any +way you want, but the modified version has to carry this same +licence" +that provision is copyleft. That's how we make sure that every user +gets the freedoms that are spelled out in this licence. +
+ ++A copyleft licence for software also must require that the users get +effective access to the source code. Giving users permission to copy +and modify binaries without access to the source code does not +effectively give users freedom #1 - the freedom to change the program +to do what they wish. +
+ ++[8:50] +
+ ++This first copyleft licence was called the GNU Emacs General Public +License because it was only for Emacs. It said in it "this is the +licence for GNU Emacs, GNU Emacs is available under this licence". +
+ ++In 1989, I revised it so that it could operate on any program without +any change. So, the licence did not say which program it was about, +instead, you would simply drop this licence into any program and put +notices on the source files saying "this file is under the GNU General +Public License", and then it would be. Anyone could use the same +exact licence in any program. This was a very important advance, and +not just because it was more convenient. Before that, we had the GNU +Emacs General Public License, and the GCC General Public License, and +they were identical except for the name. It only takes about fifteen +seconds to edit the name, that's not the point. The point is that the +GNU Emacs General Public License and the GCC General Public License +were different and they were incompatible. +
+ +[Section: How licence incompatibility happens]
+ ++The GNU Emacs General Public License said all modified versions must +be under the GNU Emacs General Public License. The GCC General Public +Licence said all modified versions must be under the GCC General +Public License. What if you wanted to merge Emacs and GCC? There was +no legal way to do that, because this one says the combined work must +be under this licence, and this one says it has to be under this +licence, and they're the same licence. It's impossible for the +licence of the combination to be this one, and at the same time be +this one. So by designing a single licence that could be dropped in +identically to Emacs and GCC, we made these two programs +licence-compatible. +
+ +[Section: "Or any later version"]
+ ++Another advance in the first version of the GNU GPL was a provision +for upgrades. We knew that we would need to change it some day, so we +put in a provision that said "if your program say it's covered by +version 1 or any later version of the GNU GPL, then, on some later +date when version 2 is released, your program will automatically, +immediately be usable under version 2". This was very important to +avoid incompatibilities. Whenever you change a copyleft licence, the +new version and the old one are incompatible because each one says +"modified programs must be released under this licence", so GPL +version 1 says "modified versions must be under GPL version +1", +and GPL version 2 says "modified versions must be under GPL version +2". +
+ ++They can't be both, so we would have had a big incompatibility problem +between the programs under GPL version 1 and the programs under GPL +version 2. To prevent that, we designed this way for people to let +their programs advance automatically to GPL version 2. It's a very +good thing that most people did that because in 1991 we designed +version 2 of the GNU GPL. All the GPL covered software, or just about +all, advanced to version 2. The changes in version 2 were fairly +small. +
+ +[Section: Liberty or Death]
+ ++There was one particular important change, which was the addition of +section 7. The "Liberty or Death" clause, as I've generally thought +about it, which says that if someone has conditions imposed on him +that don't allow him to distribute the software in a way that respects +all the freedoms stated in the GPL, then he can't distribute at all. +
+ ++[14:16] +
+ ++If somebody sues you and offers you a settlement saying "you can +distribute the software, but only as object code", or "you can +distribute the software but you'll have to make people who get it +promise not to modify it" at that point, the only thing you can do is +stop distributing it. It is better for our software to be wiped out +than for it to become "privativo" because the whole purpose of the +Free Software movement is to liberate the users in cyberspace. If we +fail to achieve that, then we've achieved nothing. +
+ ++Now, some people who were being a bit too literal minded might say +"isn't it better to give people software with some freedoms than no +software at all?" The problem is, if you think you have that option, +you won't fight as hard as you can. This clause in the GPL +essentially means we've burnt our boats. We're going to win or we're +going to fail completely, but we won't lose because we told ourselves +we could content ourselves with something less than freedom. +
+ ++However, in the past few months, Eben Moglen pointed out to me that +even if such an event happens, it doesn't really kill off the program. +It might interfere with its use in certain places by certain parties, +but the program will remain in existence and free for a lot of other +people, so it turns out that the name "Liberty or Death" is a bit +exagerated and we're going to change the name of that paragraph. But +it's still, in its spirit, it's the right way to think about the +issue. +
+ ++[17:14] +
+ +[Section: Why update the GPL?]
+ ++It was a few years ago that we became aware of certain issues calling +for more work on the GPL. It was about four years ago that I began +working with Eben Moglen on designing a new version of the GPL, and we +did a lot of work, and then we laid it aside, but last year we decided +that things were becoming urgent, so we decided we're going to get it +done now and we made plans to spend several months working on it +together. +
+ +[Section: The decision process]
+ ++We released the first discussion draft in January after several months +of working together on the text, and, we also designed a careful plan +for how to request and then study and act on the feedback from various +parts of our community. Various kinds of users and contributors. We +did not decide to let the community decide what goes into GPL version +3. There is a fundamental reason for this. Because Free Software is +very often attractive for purely practical reasons, we have collected +tens of millions of users who choose Free Software purely for +practical benefits and do not appreciate the freedom that we have +given them. These are the kind of people that assume that you should +choose between Free Software and proprietary software based on +practical convenience, which is another way of saying that they value +freedom at zero. How sad. How can freedom ever be safe, when people +don't appreciate it. People have had to fight for freedom, over and +over. +
+ ++And when people do not value their freedom, they are very likely to +lose it. But that's the fact. Most of our community does not +appreciate freedom. Most of the World, lets go of vital freedoms +whenever some crooked politician tells them "I'm going to protect you +from terrorists, give up your freedom, let me protect you." +
+ ++So, if we wanted to do a good job of protecting freedom with version 3 +of the GNU GPL, we could not let the majority of our users decide what +goes into that licence, but we need to listen to what they have to say +because there are lots of potential problems and we're not smart +enough to see them all. +
+ ++[20:52] +
+ ++We need to get a lot of feedback, so we've worked out a way to try to +do them both. +
+ +[Section: Tivoisation and Digital Restrictions Management]
+ ++There are several primary areas where version 3 is +different from version 2. One is in regard to tivoisation. Now, +you've probably never heard the term "tivoisation", because I made it +up, but it's an extrememly important threat to our freedom. It's +named after a product called the "TiVo", which is capable of recording +many television channels at once and then the user can watch any of +the shows later on. +
+ ++However, it's also designed to restrict the user in certain ways. +There's no way to copy a recording out of the TiVo, and I think it +erases them after a certain amount of time, and it also reports +everything the user watches. So it's spying on the user all the time. +
+ ++[22:30] +
+ ++The TiVo, as it happens, contains a small GNU+Linux operating system. +It contains, therefore, several Free Software packages under the GNU +GPL and the GNU GPL requires them to make the source code available to +the users, and I believe they do. The users can then modify the +source code, compile it, and install it in the TiVo. At which point, +it won't run, because the TiVo contains a special mechanism that +notices if the programs have changed and refuses to run at all. It +just shuts down. That is tivoisation: designing machines so that if +the user installs modified versions they can't really function. +
+ ++[23:43] +
+ ++Tivoisation turns freedom number 1 into a sham. Freedom 1 is the +freedom to study the source code and change it so that the program +does what you want. With tivoisation, this freedom becomes purely +theorectical. Yes, you can change the program so that it could be +run in some other machine, and that might be useful for someone, but +you can't change it and run it on the TiVo, and this is a deliberate +restriction that they impose on the public. +
+ ++The usual motive for tivoisation is because they are doing something +else nasty, and that something else is called DRM - Digital +Restrictions Management [repeats in Spanish "Gestion Digital +Restrictiones"?], in other words, the functionality of refusing to +function. Where the machine says: "I don't wanna let you see this +file" - "I don't wanna let you copy part of this file" +- "I don't +wanna print this file for you, 'cause I don't like you". That is +DRM. +
+ ++Freedom number 1 is the freedom to change the program to do what you +want. If you want to change the program so that you can't view +certain files anymore, if you want to change the program so that you +can't copy part of certain files, or you can't print certain files, +you should be free to do that. GPL version 3 respects your freedom to +do that. You can then distribute that modified version. GPL version +3 respects and defends your freedom to do that, but it will not let +you take those same freedoms away from people who get that modified +version. +
+ ++[26:03] +
+ ++GPL version 3 is designed to prohibit tivoisation, and the way we do +this is by saying that whoever distributes the program, must provide +whatever keys are necessary to install modified versions of the +program such that they can really do the job. +
+ ++Freedom 0 says you have the right to run the program as you wish for +any purpose. This means you have a right to take your copy and use it +on your computer for whatever purpose. This does not mean that you have a +right to impose your purpose on other users. If your purpose is to +restrict other people, and you want to do it by giving them a GPL +covered program then you're out of luck because they, at that point, +are the ones entitled to freedom using their copies. They're entitled +to the freedom to change the program and run it for any purpose of +their's and you have no right to control what they do. That's what we +say to some people who demand the right to use our software to impose +DRM on the public. +
+ ++[27:50] +
+ ++Yes they have the right to implement DRM and distribute the software, +but they don't have the right to impose it on the general public in a +way that they cannot escape from. The GPL version 3 draft has other +measures in it to try and stop DRM as well, but again, not by +prohibiting people from implementing those malicious features but +rather by helping to safeguard users from evil laws that most +countries in Europe have already adopted, which forbid users to do +that. There's a law in spain, I'm almost certain. +
+ ++Spain has implemented the EUCD right? Pablo? Tomorrow? oh. Is there +a battle going on here. In France there is a big battle over the +implementation of the [EUCD]. I'm afraid, if there's no battle in +Spain, they're surely going to do something much worse than the +directive requires. The directive requires making it illegal to +distribute, at least commercially, software that is capable of freeing +users from the restrictions imposed by DRM. +
+ ++GPL version 3 contains language specifically designed to say that this +power is waived, giving users permission to make the other software +that interoperates. +
+ ++[30:00] +
+ +[Section: Software patents]
+ ++Now, another area that GPL version 3 is designed to work on is that of +patents. The main motive for what we used to call the "Liberty or +Death" clause, is the danger of patents. +
+ ++"Software patents" mean, simply patents that restrict what people can +put in software. In general, a patent describes one or more ideas in +fairly general terms. Ideas for how to build something, or how it can +operate, and then says everyone is forbidden to use those ideas until +the patent expires. When these ideas can be ideas you can implement +in software, running on general purpose computing facilities, then +it's a software patent and software patents are extremely dangerous +because they mean you can write a program yourself and then get sued +by somebody you never even heard of. Not just once but maybe twenty +times or a hundred times by twenty or a hundred different people +you've never heard of, because a large program combines lots of +different ideas, thousands if not even more. +
+ ++If 10% of the ideas are patented, that means the large program will +infringe hundreds of patents, if not more. One large program has been +carefully studied by a lawyer in the US, who looked for all the +software patents that might prohibit some part of it. That program is +Linux, the kernel of the GNU+Linux operating system. He found 283 +different patents applying to various techniques and features +implemented somewhere in Linux. So this shows what the problem is +like. Other Free Software licences written in the past decade often +contain an explicit statement granting patent licences from developers +and distributors to the users. We decided it was most reliable to do +that too. +
+ ++[32:59] +
+ ++Previously, we had figured that anyone that distributed the program is +implicitly saying he wasn't going to then sue you for doing what he +had told you you could do, but we concluded it's safer to make this +explicit, so GPL version 3 draft has an explicit patent licence. +We're doing some rewriting of how it works, which you'll see when the +next draft is published, but it's going to contain an explicit +statement so that the developers and distributors can't sue people who +then use the program that they distributed. +
+ ++[33:51] +
+ +[Section: Extended compatibility]
+ ++Another main area of improvement in version 3 is extended +compatibility with certain other licences. First of all, we've +decided to make explicit in the licence what it means for other +licences to be compatible. That, we hope, will clarify a lot of +uncertainties people have had, which we have so far addressed with the +Frequently Answered Questions list. +
+ ++The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which are +compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released under +one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively, permission to +relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can happen. Some +licences explicitly say "you can also use this program under the GNU +GPL". In other cases, it's because the licence is so permissive that +to relicence it under the GNU GPL is permitted. +
+ ++[35:30] +
+ ++In any case, we've decided to explicitly describe this and then extend +it a certain amount. We've made a list of certain kinds of additional +requirements that may be added, some of which are trivial and we think +they're ok anyway but we might as well state it, but some are +non-trivial, and this is a real substantive change. For instance, +we've stated that it's ok to have a requirement saying that certain +trademarks must not be used except as trademark law would normally +permit. +
+ ++This is a condition for use the code under copyright law, but it +refers to trademark law. The reason is that there's some important +Free Software licences that have a requirement like that, so this way +we're making them compatible with the new version of the GNU GPL. +
+ ++Another kind of requirement that we see is patent retaliation. There +are some Free Software licences that say anyone who sues for patent +infringement under certain conditions loses the right to use this +software. Now, these requirements vary because they vary according to +the precise conditions that they state. So there are different kinds +of patent retaliation clauses. +
+ ++We have worked out which kinds of patent retaliation clauses seem +legitimate to us, and we have explicitly allowed for those kinds of +clauses. And that will make some additional licences compatible with +the GNU GPL. +
+ ++[37:45] +
+ +[Section: Affero clauses]
+ ++And there's another kind of clause that we're making compatible and +that's what we call the "Affero clause" because it was first used in the +Affero GPL. The Affero GPL is a modified version of the GNU GPL which +has an additional requirement designed to make sure that if somebody +runs a modified version on a publicly accessible server, that the +users of the server can also get the modified source code. In effect +it's a requirement on public use of the program. +
+ ++We thought about putting some kind of clause like that into GPL +version 3 but we decided that would be too drastic to put it on all +GPL covered programs, so I thought, lets make it a conditional +requirement that has to be activated by something you do in the +program - you put something in the program to make that requirement +apply to it, and then I realised, once we designed this extended +compatibility provision, that the easiest way to implement that was +just to use the extended compatibility provision. So this way, people +will be able to put that kind of extended compatibility requirement on +their programs, on their code. That way, it will be there for their +code and programs that contain their code, but other than that, for +other GPL covered programs, it won't apply. +
+ ++This way we don't need to design any special kind of control +mechanism. If you want that clause on your code, you put it on your +code. +
+ ++[39:56] +
+ +[Section: The future of the LGPL]
+ ++One of the nice things this has enabled us to do is: we have been +able to rewrite the Lesser GPL - the GNU LGPL - so that it uses this +clause. The GNU Lesser GPL will not have to restate most of the +things in the GPL, it will say it's the GNU GPL plus these added +permissions. One of the other benefits we get from this is that we +make it clear that any time someone adds extra permissions on top of +the GNU GPL, that when you modify the program you can take off those +added permissions. You can release your version under the strict GPL +and nothing more. +
+ ++We've also made it clear that it's impossible, it's +self-contradictory, to try to add any requirements that are not in our +list of what's allowed. From time to time people do that. They say +"This program is available under the GNU GPL except you can't use it +commercially." This is a self contradiction. The result is +nonsense. You can't tell, even, what that really means because it's +not clear what the licence would be for modified versions. +
+ ++[41:54] +
+ ++With GPL version 3, it's going to be clear that any added restrictions +that the GPL doesn't allow for can be removed. +
+ ++[Richard is asked to stop, the tape is changed, then Richard +continues] +
+ ++Thank you. Most people who are recording a speech aren't organised +enough to warn me to pause, and as a result there are gaps in the +recording which could easily be avoided. +
+ ++[42:28] +
+ +[Section: Rewording exceptions, propagation]
+ ++So, those are the main areas - the big areas of change - but there are +some smaller ones. We've done some rewriting of what we call the +"system library exception", to try to make it clearly cover the +possibility of distributing a version of our software with a non-free +operating system, but at the same time to limit it so that this can't +be abused. The kind of abuse we're concerned about would be to find a +way to make extensions in the functionality in the program itself +which are part of the non-free operating system because the goal of +copyleft is that all the modifications and extensions to the program +must themselves be free. +
+ ++We've done a lot of rewriting designed specifically for +internationalisation of the licence. Instead of talking about +"copying" and "distribution", we use the term +"propagation". +"Propagation" means, basically, copying and everything else that might +have the same results as copying. +
+ ++[44:27] +
+ ++Then we give conditions in terms of propagation, rather than copying, +and we also have the concept of propagation that can result in others +having copies, and we make conditions for that instead of +"distribution". +
+ ++This, to a substantial extend, insulates the GPL from differences +between copyright laws in different countries, so that we'll get the +same result, as far as is legally possible, in all countries. +
+ ++Another area where we made some change is in the issue of distributing +binaries now and providing source code later, on request. We've +decided that if somebody is distributing the binaries as part of a GPL +covered program, he must continue providing the source code on request +for as long as he continues to provide any other kind of customer +support for that product because, obviously, it won't be very +difficult to include this particular kind of customer support. +
+ ++[46:15] +
+ +[Section: Licence termination]
+ ++And we made a change in the way termination of the licence works. In +GPL version 2, if someone violates the licence, it terminates +automatically. At that point, if he wants to have permission once +again, to distribute or modify the program, he needs to ask for it - or +copy the program or anything that he needs the licence to do - he must +ask to get permission back again. +
+ ++For version 3, we've made a change. The change is that the developer +has to tell the user that he has done something wrong, and he has to +do this within 60 days of some violation. If the user continues to +violate the licence, the developer can always send this notice, but if +the user stops violating the licence, and then 60 more days go by, at +that point it's no longer possible for the developer to notify him +anymore. +
+ ++So, in other words, if the user recognises the violation and stops, +there's a sort of statue of limitations. Once the developer has put +the user on notice, at that point the developer can terminate the +licence at any time. What that means is that the user has to start +negotiating with the developer and saying "please don't terminate my +licence, what do you want from me?" What this means is that if +someone continues to violate the licence, this change really makes no +difference. You'll have to say "I see you're violating the +licence", +and then you can terminate it. +
+ ++But, if somebody violates the licence by mistake and he sees it and he +fixes it, then 60 days later, if he hasn't been notified, he doesn't +have to worry. +
+ ++[49:14] +
+ ++If someone has been violating the licence with an entire GNU/Linux +distribution, which, right now, if you did that, there are thousands +of GPL covered programs in a GNU/Linux distribution, which means your +licence for all of them has been terminated automatically and how in +the World are you going to contact all those developers to beg them to +give you permission again? +
+ ++Whereas, with this change, what will happen is, some of them will say +"We see you're violating the licence, this is the notice". At that +point you'll say "Oops", you'll fix it, and during the 60 days +that follow, some additional developers may decide to put you on +notice. But since they see you did it by accident, and that you've +fixed it, they'll probably say "ok, I won't terminate your +licence" +and then you're ok. The point is that with the thousands of other +developers who didn't do anything, you are not in trouble. With the +ones who have put you on notice, at least you know where to reach +them, so that they can say eventually "ok, we see that you've fixed +it, we won't terminate your licence, you're ok." +
+ ++This provision was designed to help people who accidentally violate +the requirements and fix it, without interfering with the ability to +enforce the licence legally against willful violators. +
+ ++[51:04] +
+ +[Section: What happens in the next 2 months]
+ ++In another month or so, we're going to release the next discussion +draft and at that point we will once again ask for public comment on +the changes. We will be doing this through the site gplv3.fsf.org, +the same site as before. That site contains a mechanism that people +can use to pick a part of the text of the licence and associate their +comment with it. +
+ ++At that point, some discussion committees will start looking at these +comments and studying the issues that they raise, and passing them on +to me to work on together with Eben Moglen and the other lawyers that +work with him and thus we'll once again see what further change is +needed. When we publish the new discussion draft, we will also +publish a new Rationale Document giving the explanation of the changes +that we will have made since the first draft. We will also publish - I +think it will be ready at the same time but I'm not sure - responses +to all the issues raised by the comments we received on the first +draft. +
+ +[Section: A preview of the new changes coming in Draft 2]
+ ++I'll give you a bit of a preview of the changes that will probably be +in the next discussion draft, a very general preview. +
+ ++[53:03] +
+ ++We decided to rename the "Liberty or Death" for the program clause to +"No Surrendering Others' Freedom", which is a precise description of +what it does. You're not allowed to surrender freedom on behalf of +people who are going to get the program from you. +
+ ++[a mobile phone rings] +
+ ++If you are carrying a portable surveillance and tracking device, +please turn it off. They have already tracked you here. They already +know that you are listening to me, so there is no need for you to keep +telling them that you are still here. And if they want to listen to +what I am saying, we're going to publish the video recording anyway. +They don't need to turn on your portable surveillance device to do it. +
+ ++[54:13] +
+ +[Section: Removing the bit about distributing keys]
+ ++So, we decided to get rid of a requirement that some people have +confused, which says that you must distribute all the keys that are +necessary for another program to read this program's output, because +we figured that as long as we succeed in preventing tivoisation, we +can always modify the program so that it writes its output in +unencrypted form some place else, and then you can write another +program to read it without needing any keys at all. +
+ ++Some people have got the idea - we don't think it's true - that this +part of GPL version 3 prohibits things such as the GNU Privacy Guard, +who's purpose is encryption for privacy, and that's not the goal at +all. The goal again was fighting against imposing DRM in such a way +that you can't escape from it. That's another change that some people +will like. +
+ +[Section: What's better? The Internet or mail order?]
+ ++We're going to ask people to consider the idea of allowing someone to +distribute binaries in a physical product and keep the corresponding +source code available on a network server instead of offering mail +order. +
+ ++Version 2 of the GPL says, one option is to distribute only binaries, +together with a written offer to send the sources later. The first +draft of version 3 has a similar provision. What we're considering +now is an option that says you can distribute just the binary, but you +must tell people "here's where they can get the source code on the +Net", and that must be kept available for three years plus whatever. +
+ ++The argument for this is that nowadays, for everyone in the World, +this is more convenient than mail order. In the past it wasn't. In +the past it was very often that downloading the data would have been +unbearable for most people. Nowadays, I'm told that there are +services which will download something off the Net and mail it to you +on a CD and it doesn't cost very much, so, this is something we will +be asking people to give feedback on. +
+ ++[57:51] +
+ ++We found it necessary to redesign the mechanism of the explicit patent +licence, so the next draft will work differently but it will do the +same job. And we introduced the concept of "conveying", to mean the +for propagating copies to others. Where GPL 2 talks about +"distribution", and draft 1 talks about "propagating in such a way +that others may get copies", we will be talking about +"conveying" +copies. It should make the thing much easier to read. +
+ ++We're still putting the finishing touches on the second draft. +
+ ++And, I guess that's it. +
+ ++[applause] +
+ ++Now I will answer questions. +
+ ++There's one other thing I should say. It's a very general thing. +Governments that impose harsh restrictions on their citizens, backed +up by cruel punishments, on behalf of corporations, are showing that +they are not really on the citizens's side. They're not working for +us, they don't represent us except with lip service. They represent +the corporations and their goal is to rule us. These governments are +democratic only in name. And since governments get their legitimacy +from ruling on behalf of the people and protecting the people's +rights, these governments lose their legitimacy. +
+ ++I'm very sad to say that almost all governments around the World have +done this. Government of the people, by the flunkies, for the +corporations. And it makes me very sad. +
+ ++So now I'll answer questions. +
+ ++[1:01:16] +
+ ++Q1: In GPL version 2, for non-source distribution, there are three +options, but two real options. One of them is to distribute the +source code with the binaries, the other is to distribute an offer for +the source code with the binaries. Under version 2, both of these +options are permitted for Internet distribution as well. +
+ ++RMS: That's never been our understanding, and that's why we made it +clearer. The option of offering to provide source code later is not +supposed to be for Internet distribution, it's for physical +distribution. +
+ ++Q1b: Can you explain to me what the reasoning is there? +
+ ++RMS: If you're distributing on the Internet, there's another option in +GPL version 2, which is, you put the binary and the source up on the +Net, side by side, and you let people copy them, one or both, as they +wish. That's the option for Internet distribution. +
+ ++Q1c: might that not use a lot of bandwidth? Might someone prefer to +send a CD? +
+ ++RMS: It uses as much bandwidth as the user wants. The point is, you +put both on the server and the user can download the binaries and the +user can download the source, one or the other or both. So the user +decides, the user downloads as much as he wants. It says explicitly, +you don't have to make sure that the users get the source if they get +the binaries, you just have to put them both up for download. +
+ ++Q1d: I was actually thinking more, and this is a complaint I've heard, +but, not that we necessarily have to listen to it, but upload +bandwidth, at least in the United States, most broadband services are +designed so that you are a consumer. Their downsteam bandwidth is +much greater than their upstream bandwidth. +
+ ++RMS: Well, you know, I pity the poor distributor who has a server and +can't get the source code to it. +
+ ++[laughter] +
+ ++But he can find some way. He can go to some place where they have +more bandwidth. He can buy more bandwidth. He can mail a CD to his +server site. There's something he can do. He can wait a bit longer +before he releases it. Aren't the binaries generally much bigger than +the source code anyway? +
+ ++Q1e: I don't think so, any more actually. But they're about the same, +they're in the same order of magnitude. +
+ ++RMS: Well then obviously this is no disaster, and it's a price society +should pay to make sure users get the source code frequently. +
+ ++Q1f: Thank you. +
+ ++[1:04:28] +
+ ++Q2: When you add the clauses to make it more compatible, were you +thinking about some particular licences? +
+ ++RMS: Yes and no. The main decision was based on what is ethically +acceptable to add to the GPL, but, in looking at details, we tried to +make certain licences compatible. Most importantly the Apache +licence. It will be very useful to have compatibility between the GNU +GPL version 3 and the Apache Public License. +
+ ++But also, we're thinking about licences that will be written in the +future. We hope to influence licence developers in the future to make +their licences in a way that's compatible with the GNU GPL. +
+ ++Q3: Will the new version of the LGPL become public at the same time as +the second dicussion draft of the GPL? +
+ ++RMS: Yes. We'll publish our draft of the revised LGPL at the same +time as the next draft of the GPL. +
+ ++Q4: Did you say LGPL will disappear? +
+ ++RMS: Well, it won't disappear, but instead of being a licence that +starts from scratch and is self-contained, it will be much shorter and +it will say "This consists of the GNU GPL plus the following added +permission". +
+ ++Q4a: So you have no problem to replace LGPL licenced GNU software to +GPL licenced software with an exception, right? +
+ ++RMS: Yes, the LGPL will say "I am the GNU GPL plus these added +permissions", so it will say "this is version, whatever, of +the LGPL", +but instead of being self-contained, it will say "I consist of the GNU +GPL plus some added permissions" and the added permissions will +essentially be unchanged from the LGPL. I think I recall that there +is literally no difference. +
+ ++Q5: I think one of the things that people like about GPL version 2 is +that it's one licence, so whenever you talk about the GPL, you know +what you're talking about, but with version 3 you have these options, +you can add something, you have the ability to add something that only +applies to that particular thing you're writing there. Are you +afraid that this makes is more likely to be used, or does it have any +effect? +
+ ++RMS: How many people use GPL 3 depends on lots of things, but I think +this is a price worth paying for the added compatibility which will be +tremendously beneficial for this society. Also, we have a requirement +that says when there are added permissions or requirements on parts of +the program, there must be a central list which mentions all of them. +Which means, it won't be hard to find all the terms. Also, because +any added requirements have to fit into certain narrow categories, for +most purposes they don't make any difference. +
+ ++Q6: When will the licence, version 3, be ready to be used? +
+ ++RMS: I don't know. Basically, our plan is to have another draft in +October, and that may be the final draft. That may be the actual +licence. Or that may be another discussion draft. It depends what +problems people find in the coming draft. We don't know. One must be +flexible about this. +
+ ++Q6b: Second question, when people start to update their licences to +the new versions, how will that happen in practice? +
+ ++RMS: In practice, any program that says it can be distributed under +GPL version two "or later" will automatically be available under GPL +version 3, but, when people make subsequent releases, they can change +that to say "GPL version 3 or later", that's what we will do in +subsequent releases of GNU software. +
+ ++Q6c: Basically, in a system with many components, people don't have to +modify their code? +
+ ++RMS: It depends. There are some programs which say GPL version 2 +"only", and those things will still be under GPL version 2 only, +unless the developers get together and change it, but those that say +"GPL version 2 or later" will automatically be usable under GPL +version 3 when it is official. +
+ ++Q6d: Ok, so it depends on that one sentence. +
+ ++RMS: Right. But remember, a distribution that contains many programs +is a collection. Mostly those programs are independent of each +other, and each one does what it does. The fact that they're together +in one distribution doesn't change anything. +
+ ++Q6e: I am just afraid that those independent components of open source +projects they operate their licences individually [RMS interrupts] +
+ ++RMS: Right, but we don't talk about "open source" here. We do not +work on open source, we did not design GNU GPL to be open source, +we're not designing GPL version 3 to be open source, because "open +source" is the name of a different philosophy - one that doesn't place +the values of freedom and freedom to cooperate at the forefront. For +us those are the priorities. What we do, you won't be able to +understand it if you think in terms of open source, and if you +describe what we do as open source, the people you're talking to won't +understand it either. +
+ ++Q7: With the delicate issue of Digital Restrictions Management, you +are saying that DRM is for proprietary software but not for Free +Software? +
+ ++RMS: Not exactly, what I'm saying is that Digital Restrictions +Management represents an attempt by certain few to impose their +control over everyone else, and that this is wrong, and that because +their goal is to control other people, the next thing they do, almost +always, is they try to stop users from changing the software. In +other words, they try to take away, for practical purposes, freedom +number 1. We have decided to defend freedom number 1 - that is, the +freedom to change the software so that it does what you want. +
+ ++We do not forbid the implementation of DRM. That is, GPL version 3 +will no forbid people to modify the software so that it fails to do +certain things. What we insist on is that whoever does this and +distributes the crippled program respect the freedom of other people +to add what is missing. +
+ ++Q7b: So, government laws are not GPL laws? +
+ ++RMS: I heard the words but I don't understand. I have no idea what it +would mean to be GPL laws. I'm sorry. +
+ ++[the question is reworded and asked later, see Q9] +
+ ++Q8: Proliferation of licences sometimes makes it difficult. What do +you have in mind to help to reduce this current proliferation of +licences. +
+ ++There's nothing I can do about it. Mostly, new licences are developed +by companies that are not particularly interested in respecting users' +freedom. I have less influence with them than with any other part of +our community. I hope that they will release their software under GPL +version 3, but you'll have to convince them, not me. +
+ ++[1:18:18] +
+ ++Q9: I have two questions. The first one is what I have understood of +[Q7b]. I think what was being asked was that, in your explanation of +DRM and tivoisation, it sounded like GPL trumps national laws. +
+ ++RMS: No, in general it can't. The only time we can do that is in +situations where the developer or distributor of a certain program +legally has certain powers, and if so, that developer or distributor +can waive those powers too, and if he can waive those powers, GPL +version three will say "by distributing this program, you waive the +power over this program." That's the only case in which the GPL can +override a national law, it's when the national law itself gives the +distributors of a program the option to do so. +
+ ++Q9b: And my question is, when programs have been licensed under the +terms of GPL "version 2 or later" pass automatically to version 3, +what happens to the new restrictions added, I guess they're optional, +in the new licence? +
+ ++RMS: Ah, here it is. First of all, the program that says "version 2 +or later" doesn't have them. Now, if you want to change it, to merge +in something, say, under the Apache licence, you can do that if you're +using it under version 3 of the GPL, but you can't do that under +version 2. When you do that, you have to change it to say version 3 +or later. However, as long as you don't merge in anything under the +Apache licence, you could if you wish continue having it say "version +2 or later". +
+ ++Q9c: But anyone can add any restrictions. +
+ ++RMS: Not any restrictions. +
+ ++Q9d: ...that are in the menu. +
+ ++RMS: Yes, right, but since it's only GPL version 3 which permits that, +when you do that, you'd better take away the thing that says "GPL +version 2". +
+ ++Can someone note down that we should have a FAQ answer about that? +Novalis? That would be a useful thing to clarify for people. +
+ ++Q10: As for translations, will there be versions in Spanish, French? +Official versions of v3? +
+ ++RMS: We're not sure. It's very dangerous to make an official +translation of the GPL. What if we made a horrible mistake? +
+ ++If it's a Spanish translation, I can read it. That doesn't mean that +I will understand its legal consequences. Y'now, producing a +translation in Castellano would be as much work as producing +the original English version. Well, maybe it will only be a quarter +as much work. That's a lot of work. +
+ ++And then, although I've got some idea what these words mean in regard +to US copyright law, from many years of discussing these issues with +copyright lawyers, but that doesn't mean that I have the faintest +idea... I probably don't even know the vocabulary of law in Castellano. +
+ ++Those are words I don't know. And now imagine what happens when +someone wants a Polish translation. This is a very hard problem. +
+ ++Q10b: Could the FSFE work on it? +
+ ++RMS: Well, the thing is, maybe yes and maybe no. How would the FSF +Europe work on it? They would get lawyers to do it, but, who are +those lawyers, and to what extent do we know we can trust them. It's +really hard, because a mistake could be a Worldwide disaster. +
+ ++Now, I've got the idea, maybe we could release a translation approved +only for one country. We could release a translation in +Castellano, approved only for Spain, and then separately we could +release one only for Mexico, and it might be the same. +
+ ++But, even if it's the same, the point is, it's got to be checked for +Mexico. The crucial thing is, we don't want it to be valid in the US, +or China, India, Brazil, and so on. Because, if we release fifty +translations and each one is valid everywhere, that's fifty chances +for a horrible mistake to happen. Even if we were just as reliable +with each translation as we are with the original, I don't want to +have fifty times the chance to make a mistake. So this is one way to +limit it. +
+ ++Now, another question is: would it be ok to release a time-limited +translation? I'm not sure about this. The master GPL cannot be +time-limited. If we give you certain freedoms, it must be forever. +However, maybe it's ok if the translation is time-limited and may be +replaced with another translation. This way, maybe we can correct +errors. Errors are much less dangerous if we can correct them. But +it's not clear that it's acceptable, even for a translation, to be +time limited, to not be forever. +
+ ++It's a very hard job. +
+ ++Other questions? +
+ ++Q11: Can I make my question in Spanish? +
+ ++RMS: Si [Richard and the audience member discuss the question in +Spanish, then Richard answers in English] +
+ ++[1:28:33] +
+ ++A free program must be available for all kinds of use. That's +fundamental. For authors to try to restrict what users do, in their +own lives, in their own activities, is completely unacceptable. Any +program, unless it serves only trivial purposes, like a game, can be +used for evil purposes, just as a pen, or typewriter, or a telephone, +can be used for evil purposes. +
+ ++I don't think that we should allow pens or telephones or typewriters +to come with requirements for what you can use them for, nor general +purpose programs. That is its own form of tyranny. A program with +such restrictions would not be Free Software. We will not allow any +such restrictions to be added to any version of GNU GPL. +
+ ++The most common restriction they propose, is restriction against +military use. I would be extremely unhappy if my friend [sounds like +"Zargento Mayor Totos Bravo"] in Venezuela could no longer install new +versions of our software on the army's servers. The army of Venezuela +may be necessary for resistance against an invasion some day from: you +can guess where. +
+ ++[Q&A ends, applause] +
+ +