954 lines
39 KiB
HTML
954 lines
39 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Richard Stallman in Brussels,
|
|
Belgium; 2007-04-01</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<div class="image right">
|
|
<a href="gplv3.html"><img src="/graphics/gplv3-logo-red.png" alt="GPLv3 logo" /></a>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h1>Transcript of Richard Stallman on GPLv3 in Brussels,
|
|
Belgium; 1st of April 2007</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Transcript released 4th of April 2007. Background and related
|
|
documents:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Transcripts">The wiki.fsfe.org/transcripts listing</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="diff-draft2-draft3.html">Side-by-side diff of v2 and v3</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-3.html">Draft 3 (public comment system)</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf">Rationale doc</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq">dd3 FAQ</a></li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070403114157109">The
|
|
interview by Sean Daly from that day</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2-guide">The 2nd draft of
|
|
LGPLv3 is out</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://ciaran.compsoc.com/TEMPORARY-URL-rms-gplv3-20070401.vorbis.ogg">The audio recording</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Recording thanks to Sean Daly. Transcription
|
|
by Ciarán O'Riordan.
|
|
Please support work such as this
|
|
by <a href="https://my.fsfe.org/donate">joining the Fellowship of
|
|
FSFE</a>, by
|
|
<a href="/help/donate">donating to FSFE</a>, and by encouraging
|
|
others to do each. The speech was given in English.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Table of contents</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#free-sw">What is Free Software?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#gnu">The GNU project</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#licences">Free Software licences</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#internationalisation">Internationalisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation">Tivoisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation-d3">Tivoisation - the limits in draft 3</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#eucd">Deflating the EUCD and DMCA</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#ms-novell">Novell, Microsoft, and patents</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#termination">Termination</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#added">Formalising added permissions</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#bittorrent">BitTorrent</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#retaliation">Patent retaliation and the Apache licence</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#bracketed">The bracketed, dated clause</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="presentation">The Presentation</h2>
|
|
|
|
<div class="image">
|
|
<img src="rms-20070401.jpeg" alt="Richard Stallman speaking" />
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="free-sw">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: What
|
|
is Free Software?]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In order to understand the GNU General Public License, first you have
|
|
to understand what free software means. Free Software means software
|
|
that respects the users' freedom. Software that's not free is
|
|
proprietary software. Non-free software, user subjugating software,
|
|
is distributed in a social system that keeps the users the divided and
|
|
helpless. Divided because every user is forbidden to share the
|
|
program with anyone else and helpless because the users don't have the
|
|
source code, so they can't change it, they have no control over it,
|
|
and they can't even verify independently what it's really doing. It
|
|
may have malicious features, quite often it does, and the users may
|
|
not even be able to tell what malicious features it has.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Free Software respects the users' freedom. That's why it's important
|
|
when we say free software, we're talking about freedom, not price, we
|
|
don't mean gratis software. It's not an issue of price at all, price
|
|
is merely a detail. A secondary detail, not an ethical issue. To
|
|
understand the term Free Software correctly, think of free speech, not
|
|
free beer.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Specifically, Free Software means that the user has four essential
|
|
freedoms:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
Freedom one is the freedom to study the source code and change it so
|
|
that the program does what you wish when you run it.
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
Freedom two is the freedom to help your neighbour; that is, the
|
|
freedom to distribute exact copies to others, when you wish.
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
Freedom three is the freedom to contribute to your community; that's
|
|
the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions, when you
|
|
wish.
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Each of these freedoms is the freedom to do something if you wish,
|
|
when you wish. It's not an obligation, it's not a requirement.
|
|
You're not required to run the program. You're not required to study
|
|
it or change it. You're not required to distribute exact copies. And
|
|
you're not required to distribute modified versions. But, you are
|
|
free to do those things, when you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If this were a speech to introduce Free Software I would explain the
|
|
reasons why those freedoms are essential, but in this brief
|
|
introductions I will have to omit that. Suffice it to say that if a
|
|
program respects these four freedoms, then the social system of its
|
|
distribution and use is an ethical system. Which means that, in this
|
|
regard at least, the software is ethically legitimate. But if one of
|
|
these freedoms is substantially missing, then the program is
|
|
proprietary software, meaning that the social system of its
|
|
distribution and use is unethical and regardless of what the program
|
|
does, it shouldn't be distributed in this way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Developing a non-free program is no contribution to society. It's an
|
|
attack on freedom and social solidarity. Such attacks ought to be
|
|
discouraged, and I hope to see the day when they no longer occur.
|
|
That is the goal of the free software movement; that all computer
|
|
users should have these four freedoms, for all the software that they
|
|
use. That subjugation of others, through the software that they run,
|
|
should no longer occur.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="gnu">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: The GNU
|
|
project]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
To bring this about, or at least start, in 1984 I began developing an
|
|
operating system whose purpose was to be entirely Free Software. It's
|
|
name is GNU, which is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix". This
|
|
system is, technically speaking, compatible with Unix, but the most
|
|
important thing about it is that it is not Unix. Because Unix is
|
|
proprietary software and GNU, because it's not Unix, can be made free
|
|
by us, it's developers, and that's the whole point - to give you an
|
|
operating system that you can run without ceding your freedom to
|
|
anyone.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are now tens of millions, perhaps a hundred million users of a
|
|
variant of the GNU system. Most of them don't know that it's a
|
|
variant of the GNU system because they think it's Linux. Linux is
|
|
actually one component of the system they use. A component that does
|
|
an essential job and that was developed in 1991, and liberated by its
|
|
developer in 1992. The GNU system plus Linux, which is the program we
|
|
call the kernel, made a complete free operating system in 1992. With
|
|
the GNU plus Linux combination it became possible for the first time
|
|
to use a PC compatible computer in freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="licences">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Free
|
|
Software licences]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The way that Linux was liberated was by rereleasing it under the GNU
|
|
General Public License. The GNU General Public License is the Free
|
|
Software licence that I wrote for use in the components of the GNU
|
|
system. When we wrote these components, we made them Free Software by
|
|
releasing them under the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But what does that mean? A program is legally considered a literary
|
|
work, and it's subject to copyright. Everything that you write is
|
|
automatically copyrighted - which is somewhat of an absurd law, but
|
|
that's the way it is - and copyright law, by default, forbids copying,
|
|
distribution, modification of a work. So, how can any program ever be
|
|
free software? The only way is if the copyright holders put on a
|
|
notice saying to the users "you have the four freedoms, because we
|
|
don't object". That notice is a free software licence. Any notice
|
|
which has that effect is a free software licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are actually dozens of different free software licences but the
|
|
GNU GPL is the most popular one. It's used for about 70% of all free
|
|
software packages. The main difference between the GNU GPL and most
|
|
Free Software licences is that the GNU GPL is a copyleft licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Copyleft is a technique that I invented, a way of using copyright law
|
|
to defend the freedom of other people. In order to be a free software
|
|
licence, the licence has to recognise the four freedoms, if you get a
|
|
program under any free software licence, you have the four freedoms.
|
|
The licence gives you them. And that includes freedom number three,
|
|
the freedom to distribute copies of modified versions, and freedom
|
|
number two, the freedom to distribute copies without modification, but
|
|
when you do that, when you distribute those copies to other people,
|
|
will they have the four freedoms?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Maybe yes, maybe no, it depends how you do it. For instance, even in
|
|
1984, I could see there was a danger that you might distribute a
|
|
binary of the program without providing the source code, and that
|
|
would deny the subsequent recipients freedom number one. The freedom
|
|
to study the source code and change it so the program does what they
|
|
wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So if you could distribute copies without source code, people would
|
|
get it from you and they wouldn't have the four freedoms. Not all of
|
|
them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another thing you might conceivably do is put on additional
|
|
restrictions. When you distribute it, perhaps you would put on a
|
|
different licence and that licence might be restrictive, it might not
|
|
respect the four freedoms for other people. If you could do that,
|
|
they who got the program from you would not have Free Software. Many
|
|
Free Software licences permit these things, so they respect the four
|
|
freedoms but they don't defend the four freedoms. A middle man could
|
|
strip off the freedom from the program and then pass on the program
|
|
to you and you would get the code but you wouldn't get freedom. You
|
|
might just get a binary, or you might get a binary with a licence that
|
|
says you're not allowed to copy it. Or you might even get source
|
|
code, but it would say you're not allowed to copy it. Various things
|
|
might happen which would result in your not getting Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
My goal, in developing the GNU operating system, was specifically to
|
|
give freedom to all computer users. If it were possible for middle
|
|
men to make the software non-free - if, for instance, by changing it,
|
|
that they had an excuse to make the software non-free, the goal would
|
|
be defeated. We would fail to provide freedom to the users.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So I designed a Free Software licence specifically to make sure that
|
|
everyone who gets any version of the program gets it as free software,
|
|
with the four freedoms. In version one of the GNU GPL, which was
|
|
published in 1989, it was designed to block the two kinds of attack
|
|
that I just described to you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One being: don't distribute the source code, release only a binary.
|
|
Well, GPL version one said a condition of distributing binaries was
|
|
that you make source code available also, to the same people. That
|
|
blocked that one attack.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The other attack was to put on additional licence terms, to change the
|
|
licence. Well, GPL version one said you have permission to distribute
|
|
copies but it has to be under this licence, no more and no less. Any
|
|
other way, you're not allowed to distribute. So, no adding other
|
|
requirements. No removing the requirements that protect peoples'
|
|
freedom. Every copy that everyone gets, legally must be distributed
|
|
under the same licence: the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In 1991, I published version two of the GNU GPL, and this blocked
|
|
another possible method of attacking users' freedom. A method I
|
|
didn't know about in 1989 but which I became aware of afterward. This
|
|
would be that a patent holder might sue a redistributor, and in the
|
|
settlement the redistributor might agree "when we redistribute this
|
|
program, we will put certain restrictions on the users".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
What could we do about that? Software patents are weapons that should
|
|
not exist. They attack the freedom of computer users, they sabotage
|
|
software development, they're only good for the megacorporations.
|
|
It's the megacorporations that lobby for them, with the help of their
|
|
pet government in Washington.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The fact is, in countries foolish enough to authorise software
|
|
patents, a patent holder can stop the distribution of any program that
|
|
implements the patented idea, and there's nothing we can do in the
|
|
licence of the program to prevent it from being suppressed in this
|
|
way. Because the free software licence is just permission to use the
|
|
copyright holder's copyrighted work, it has nothing to do with
|
|
somebody else's patent.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We can't prevent a patent holder from killing the program, but, we can
|
|
hope to save the program from a fate worse than death, which is, to be
|
|
made non-free, to be turned into an instrument of subjugation. Better
|
|
that our software should cease to exist, at least for 20 years, the
|
|
duration of a patent, than it become an instrument for subjugation.
|
|
And that, I found a way to do. So in GPL version two, section seven
|
|
says that if any conditions are imposed on you or you agree to any
|
|
conditions that forbid you to distribute the program with all the
|
|
freedoms granted by the GPL, then you can't distribute at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So anyone who tries to sue or threaten you, and tries to settle this
|
|
in a way that would turn the program into an instrument of
|
|
subjugation, discovers that all he has achieved is to kill it.
|
|
...which at least avoids the fate worse than death for the program.
|
|
And in fact, this gives our community a certain measure of safety
|
|
because very often the patent holder will not find it particularly
|
|
advantageous to kill the program. On the other hand, if the patent
|
|
could make it effectively non-free and charge people for permission to
|
|
run it, that would be advantageous. So if the patent holder could
|
|
inflict a fate worse than death, that would be more tempting than
|
|
merely to kill it off. So we actually make it less likely that any
|
|
bad thing will happen, by standing firm.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version two has been used now for sixteen years. Over the years,
|
|
we saw various reasons to change it. Two years ago, we decided it was
|
|
time to start seriously working on this and get out a new version. We
|
|
realised it would take time. I set aside several months to work on
|
|
GPL version three in 2005, so as to prepare the first draft that was
|
|
released in January 2006.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We have just published the third discussion draft and we've decided to
|
|
wait for sixty days and then prepare what we hope will be the final
|
|
draft for the last bit of comments before the final draft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So what are the changes we've made?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
People often ask for a simple summary of these changes, but there
|
|
can't be one, and the reason is that the changes are all in specifics
|
|
because the basic idea is the same: defend freedom for all users.
|
|
That will never change. So all the changes are in specific areas and
|
|
details. Let me tell you about the most important ones. One of them
|
|
is internationalisation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="internationalisation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Internationalisation]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We have changed the language to avoid certain terms whose meanings
|
|
vary more than necessary between countries. Terms like "distribute".
|
|
In GPL version three, we will not use the word "distribute". We've
|
|
formulated two new terms, and defined them in ways that get results
|
|
that are as uniform worldwide as possible. The first term is
|
|
"propagate". That means basically copying, or anything else like it,
|
|
that requires permission under copyright law.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Anything except just to modify one copy or run it is to propagate the
|
|
work. And then the second term is "convey". "Convey" basically
|
|
replaces "distribute to others" but it's not defined in terms of the
|
|
word "distribute", it's defined in terms of propagate in such a way
|
|
that others may get copies. So we avoid the word "distribution", and
|
|
then, in the bulk of the licence, we set terms for propagating the
|
|
work and terms for conveying the work. And this way the resulting
|
|
conditions are as uniform as possible worldwide. Now, they will never
|
|
be exactly uniform, as long as some details of copyright law vary.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tivoisation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Tivoisation]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another major change consists of a new form attacking a user's freedom
|
|
that we've seen in the past few years. It's called tivoisation. This
|
|
is the practice of designing a machine so that if the user installs a
|
|
modified version of a program, the machine refuses to run it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's named after the first product I heard of which did this, which is
|
|
called the Tivo. The Tivo contains Free Software released under
|
|
version two, and they provide the source code, so the user of the Tivo
|
|
can modify the program and compile it, and install the modified
|
|
version in his machine, whereupon the machine won't run at all because
|
|
it notices that this is a modified version. This means that in some
|
|
nominal sense, the user has freedom number one, but really, in
|
|
practical terms it has been taken away, it has been turned into a
|
|
sham. And this happens systematically, and it makes a systematic
|
|
threat to users' freedom. So we've decided to block this, and the way
|
|
we block it is as part of the conditions for distributing binaries, we
|
|
say that if you distribute in, or for use in, a certain product, then
|
|
you must provide whatever the user needs in order to install her own
|
|
modified version and have them function the same way, unless her
|
|
changes in the code change the function. But the point is that it's
|
|
not just the user has to be able to install it and has to be able to
|
|
run, but it has to be able to do the same job, despite having been
|
|
modified.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If the mere fact that the program is modified is detected and prevents
|
|
the program from doing the same job, that's also a violation, that
|
|
means that the installation information is insufficient, and that is
|
|
what would happen under Microsoft's scheme that it used to call
|
|
Palladium. The idea was that files would be encrypted so that only a
|
|
particular program could ever read them. If you got the source code
|
|
of that program and you modified it and you compiled it, the checksum
|
|
of your version would be different. So your version would be unable
|
|
to read the files encrypted for the original version. And the
|
|
original version would be unable to read any files encrypted for your
|
|
version except that there aren't any. They would pretend that this is
|
|
just a symmetrical situation and they haven't done anything to shaft
|
|
you, but our conditions say they have to give you what it takes so
|
|
that you can make your modified version do the same job, and the mere
|
|
fact that it's been modified may make it fail to do that job.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tivoisation-d3">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Tivoisation - the limits in draft 3]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In version three we've decided to limit this requirement somewhat.
|
|
It's limited to a category that we call "user products", which include
|
|
consumer products and anything that's going to be built into a house.
|
|
This is to exclude products that are made specifically for businesses
|
|
and are not normally used by consumers at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The reason we did this is because the big danger is in the area of
|
|
user products, and this way we were able to get at least a partial
|
|
agreement of businesses that at least we hope will be able to help us
|
|
actually put an end to this threat.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The products that do tivoisation typically do it because there is some
|
|
other malicious feature in the product. For instance, the Tivo spies
|
|
on the user and it implements Digital Restrictions Management. That's
|
|
why they want to stop you from changing the program. Digital
|
|
Restrictions Management is unethical. It shouldn't ever be
|
|
tolerated. And spying on the user is unethical also, but we have not
|
|
put anything in the GPL to say that you can't make the software spy on
|
|
the user or that it has to be able to copy things. There is no
|
|
restriction at all on what functionality your modified version of the
|
|
program can have.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The anti-tivoisation requirement doesn't limit you in that regard.
|
|
You can implement the nastiest features you can think of and release a
|
|
modified version with those nasty features. We're only trying to make
|
|
sure that the users who get the program from you will have the freedom
|
|
to remove those nasty features and fill in whatever useful features
|
|
you took out. They should be free to modify it just as you were free
|
|
to modify it. That's what the anti-tivoisation provisions do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="eucd">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Deflating the EUCD and DMCA]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We also have provisions in section three to try to defeat unjust laws
|
|
such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US and the EU
|
|
Copyright Directive and any similar laws that implement that WIPO
|
|
copyright directive - a treaty which no government representing its
|
|
citizens would ever sign.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It actually has two paragraphs. One which is aimed at the DMCA and
|
|
similar laws, and another which is aimed at the EU Copyright
|
|
Directive, but they both achieve the same goal. The goal they achieve
|
|
is, if somebody uses GPL covered software as part of a scheme to
|
|
encode or decode works, then he has waived any possibility of claiming
|
|
that some other software which decodes those works is a violation of
|
|
these laws. This is simply a way of trying to prevent people being
|
|
forbidden to distributed software, perhaps modified versions of the
|
|
same software or perhaps not but either way, we're making sure that
|
|
these laws can't be used to suppress the modified versions that people
|
|
may wish to distribute under the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[26:30]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="ms-novell">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Novell, Microsoft, and patents]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's another form of attack on Free Software's freedoms that we
|
|
found out about last November with the Novell-Microsoft deal. What
|
|
happened was that Novell made a deal with Microsoft where Novell pays
|
|
for distributing copies of GPL-covered software and Microsoft gives
|
|
the customers of Novell a very limited patent licence which is
|
|
conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL
|
|
gives them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a big threat, so we've gone at it from two directions. One is
|
|
aimed at Microsoft's role in that deal. We say: if you make a deal to
|
|
procure someone else's distribution of a program under GPL version
|
|
three and you provide any sort of patent licence to anybody in
|
|
connection with that, then it extends to anybody who gets it. So if
|
|
Novell were to distribute software under GPL version three under this
|
|
deal, then this affects Microsoft because they're procuring
|
|
distribution through this deal.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The other paragraph, and these are both in section [11], is aimed at
|
|
the Novell side in the deal, which is, it says that if you distribute
|
|
the program under an arrangement you made with someone else, to gain
|
|
promises of patent safety for your customers in a discriminatory way,
|
|
then you're violating the licence and you lose your right to
|
|
distribute.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This actually has a few more conditions because we were trying to
|
|
avoid covering certain other things, for instance, consider a patent
|
|
parasite, one of those companies that has only one business which is
|
|
to go around threatening people with patent law suits and making them
|
|
pay. When this happens, the businesses that are attacked often have
|
|
no choice but to pay them off. We don't want to put them in a
|
|
position of being GPL violators as a result. So we put in a
|
|
condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a
|
|
business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a
|
|
result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by
|
|
this paragraph.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We also did something to exclude blanket cross-licences and various
|
|
other practices which are not threatening in the same way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[29:38]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This section [11], which these paragraphs are included in, does somewhat
|
|
more. We decided in GPL version three that distributors should
|
|
explicitly give patent licences when they distribute the software. We
|
|
do this in two ways. Those that contribute to the development of the
|
|
program, that make any changes at all, give an affirmative patent
|
|
licence to all downstream recipients. Those who just pass along
|
|
copies, without changing it, they are bound not to sue any of those
|
|
downstream recipients or their licence terminates.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a sort of compromise that is designed to encourage lots of
|
|
companies to participate in the distribution, and thus, we hope, make
|
|
our community somewhat safer.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In previous versions of the GPL, we didn't have any kind of explicit
|
|
patent licence. We took for granted that if you distribute someone a
|
|
program under the GPL and you say that he's allowed to do certain
|
|
things, that you can't sue him for doing those things. And in the US,
|
|
that's true, within certain bounds, but it's not true worldwide. So
|
|
this is another aspect of internationalisation - getting the same
|
|
result around the World.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="termination">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Termination]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change that we have made is in termination. With GPL version
|
|
two, if you violate the licence, you have lost your rights to do
|
|
anything with the program. And the only way to get them back is to go
|
|
to all the copyright holders and beg for forgiveness. Which in most
|
|
cases they will give you, if you show that you are going to follow the
|
|
licence in the future, but their may be lots and lots of copyright
|
|
holders.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This could be a gigantic amount of work. It could be totally
|
|
unfeasible. With GPL version three, your licence is not terminated
|
|
automatically. Rather, the copyright holder can write to you can say
|
|
"I'm putting you on notice", and after that point, the copyright
|
|
holder can terminate your licence, if he wants to. But he doesn't
|
|
have to. He could just forgive you instead if he sees that you're
|
|
going to comply.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The result is, suppose you do something that violates the licence, and
|
|
you distribute an entire GNU/Linux distribution with thousands of
|
|
programs in it, and you fail to follow the requirements. And suppose
|
|
ten copyright holders contact you and say you violated the licence,
|
|
and you say "Oops, I better do this right" and then sixty days go by
|
|
and maybe, say, five more copyright holders will contact you within
|
|
those sixty days then those are the only ones that can terminate your
|
|
licence. But the idea is that you show those fifteen developers that
|
|
you are complying now and you promise to keep doing so. And they say
|
|
"Ok, we forgive you".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
You don't have to find all the other thousands of copyright holders
|
|
and ask them for forgiveness. So, as long as you keep on with your
|
|
violating practice, all the copyright holders still can put you on
|
|
notice when the word gets around to them, but when you stop violating
|
|
the licence, then they have sixty more days when they can still
|
|
complain, and then they can't complain anymore. So only the ones who
|
|
complain within that time are the ones you have to deal with.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[34:00]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We've also put in an automatic cure period for first time violators.
|
|
If you violate the licence, and it's the first time you violated the
|
|
licence for a certain copyright holder and you correct it within 30
|
|
days, things are automatically restored. You're ok. But that doesn't
|
|
apply the second time.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're trying to make it easy for accidental violators, those who are
|
|
willing to clean up their act, while still facilitating enforcement
|
|
against those who don't clean up their act.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[34:55]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change we've made, has to do... ...what we've done that's new
|
|
in section 10 is we've dealt with kinds of situations that arise when
|
|
a company subdivides or sells a division to another company, what
|
|
happens then? We want to make sure this is clear. It shouldn't be
|
|
very controversial, but at least now it's well defined.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="added">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section:
|
|
Formalising added permissions]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another thing that we've done is that we've formalised what it means
|
|
to give added permission. There's a practice used with GPL version
|
|
two which is common enough which is that you say "This is released
|
|
under version 2 of the GPL or later, and in addition we say you can do
|
|
X, Y, or Z". Added special permission as an exception.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And this is perfectly fine since what it means to release a program
|
|
under a free software licence is simply you give the permission stated
|
|
in the licence and you can also give other permissions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But in order to make it clearer what this means, we've formalised it.
|
|
So we've explained that you can give additional permissions for part
|
|
of the code that you introduce into the GPL covered program, where you
|
|
have the right to give those permission. Because the program is
|
|
available under the GPL terms, when somebody modifies it, she can take
|
|
off the added permissions. The GPL gives her permission to release
|
|
her version under the GPL. She doesn't have to give any added
|
|
permissions for her version. But she could also pass on those added
|
|
permissions because she got those added permissions to you and when
|
|
she modifies those parts, she can also give those same added
|
|
permissions for those changes when she wants.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So when a program is released under GPL plus added permissions,
|
|
everyone who passes it along has a choice. Preserve the added
|
|
permissions or remove them. Section 7 explains this. It also
|
|
explains that certain kinds of explicit requirements found in other
|
|
free software licences are, under our understanding, compatible with
|
|
the GPL and that's in fact our practice with GPL version two but
|
|
again, it's good to make it explicit.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And they are basically trivial ones. Like, this copyright notice
|
|
can't be removed. Or different statements of warranty disclaimers.
|
|
They're not substantive conditions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In draft 2, this section, section 7, was more complicated. We set it
|
|
up so that there were a few specific kinds of substantive requirements
|
|
that you could add. And so we'd need a lot more complicated mechanism
|
|
to keep track of them. A lot of people didn't like the complexity of
|
|
this. So we got rid of that and we dealt with those issues in other
|
|
ways. For instance, there's a section in the latest draft which says
|
|
when a program is released under GPL version three, you can link it
|
|
with code that is under the Affero GPL. In a previous draft, we said
|
|
that the added requirement in the Affero GPL was one of those
|
|
requirements that you could add to parts of a program that you
|
|
contribute. Now, it isn't. Now, the GPL is purely and simply the GPL
|
|
and it only allows linking with other code that was released by its
|
|
developers under the Affero GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The Affero GPL, for those who don't know, is basically GNU GPL version
|
|
two, plus one additional requirement which says if you use the
|
|
software publicly on a website, then you've got to give the users of
|
|
the site a way to download the source code you're running. The source
|
|
code corresponding to the version they are talking through.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The basic idea is that for those developing software meant for use in
|
|
this way, on servers, they want those who publicly deploy modified
|
|
versions to contribute their code back to the community.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When we advised Affero on releasing this licence, we had the intention
|
|
of making a future GPL version compatible with it and this is how
|
|
we're going to achieve it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="bittorrent">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: BitTorrent]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change that we've made is for support of things like
|
|
BitTorrent. BitTorrent is peculiar because when you receive copies,
|
|
you automatically end up distributing copies to other people and you
|
|
don't even know it. This is so bizarre, that I never imagined any
|
|
such thing back in 1991. And in fact, distributing a program under
|
|
GPL version two using BitTorrent does things that violate the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
All these people are redistributing copies and they don't know it, and
|
|
they are failing to carry out their responsibilities under the GPL.
|
|
So we changed it so they won't have any problem. Obviously,
|
|
distribution using BitTorrent should be OK.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[42:00]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The problem has to do with binaries. The GPL's idea is that if you
|
|
distribute binaries, you've got to make source available. But if
|
|
somebody's participating in a torrent for the binaries, well, he may
|
|
not know where the source code is, and he didn't set it up anyway, and
|
|
we don't want to make him responsible for dealing with the source
|
|
code, as a mere user trying to get a copy through the torrent.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change, that will make things simpler for a lot of people, is
|
|
that you will now be permitted to distribute physical copies of
|
|
binaries and put the source code on a server for people to get. The
|
|
reason that wasn't allowed in the past was that for a lot of users in
|
|
the past, downloading the corresponding source code might have been
|
|
prohibitively slow and expensive.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In a lot of parts of the World, certainly, sixteen years ago, people
|
|
wouldn't have had broadband. All they would have had is dial-up
|
|
connections. You could give somebody a CD of an entire system, and if
|
|
you could say to him "to get the source code, just pull it down
|
|
through your phone line", that would have been ridiculous. So we said
|
|
you have to offer them to mail them a source CD, or other source
|
|
medium, which would have been a lot cheaper and much more feasible
|
|
than getting the whole thing through a phone line. But nowadays in
|
|
fact there are services which which download anything for you and mail
|
|
it to you on a CD anywhere in the World and they don't charge very
|
|
much. So the problem we were trying to protect against, which is that
|
|
lots of users would find it unfeasible to get the source, isn't a
|
|
problem anymore. These services charge less than a mail order service
|
|
required by GPL version two is likely to cost. So we can just say, we
|
|
presume people will use those services if they need them and we don't
|
|
have to put that requirement on every distributor.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[44:44]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I think this is basically it. There are many little details, and I
|
|
certainly have forgotten about some of them right now.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We took out the paragraph in GPL version two about putting on a
|
|
geographical limit saying that you can't distribute the program in a
|
|
certain country if something like patents in that country have
|
|
effectively made the program non-free. We think we've defended
|
|
against that pretty well and nobody ever used that anyway.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, in about 90 days...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[interruption for tape change]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="retaliation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Patent retaliation and the Apache licence]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Previous drafts had a couple of provisions regarding retaliation
|
|
against aggression using software patents. First of all, there was a
|
|
very limited kind of retaliation directly in the GPL itself which said
|
|
that if somebody started using a modified version of a program and
|
|
then sued somebody else for patent infringement for making similar
|
|
improvements in his own version, that this would cause termination of
|
|
a specific right, namely the right to continue modifying the program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We took that out because it didn't seem like it would be terribly
|
|
effective. We also, in section 7, where it allowed putting on
|
|
additional requirements, one of them was a stronger kind of patent
|
|
retaliation and there were two kinds that were allowed. The latest
|
|
draft essentially does one of them itself, and so we don't need to
|
|
make that another kind of requirement you can add. And the other
|
|
kind, it looked like nobody's actually doing it, so just for
|
|
simplicity we took out that option.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The reason that we allowed people to add these two kinds of patent
|
|
retaliation clauses was for compatibility, and one of them is used by
|
|
the Apache licence. We hoped to make GPL version three compatible
|
|
with the Apache licence and we thought we had. We were focusing on
|
|
the Apache licence's patent retaliation clause, and in previous drafts
|
|
we said it was ok to add that requirement to the code you contribute.
|
|
Now we just have that requirement, later on in the GPL, so it doesn't
|
|
even need to be added.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So we are compatible with that clause in the Apache licence but a few
|
|
months ago we noticed that there was another clause in the Apache
|
|
licence requiring indemnity in certain cases, and there's no way we
|
|
can be compatible with that. So we're not going to achieve that goal
|
|
of making GPL version three compatible with the existing Apache
|
|
licence. I regret that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="bracketed">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: The
|
|
bracketed, dated clause]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's one bracketed clause in the current draft and that concerns a
|
|
cut-off date in the paragraph that forbids making deals to get patent
|
|
safety for your customers alone. We haven't decided whether that will
|
|
apply to deals that have already been signed, or only deals that are
|
|
signed after the release of this draft. And that mainly depends on
|
|
how good a job we find we have done drawing a line between these
|
|
pernicious deals and other kinds of deals that we don't want to
|
|
cover. We've come up with some criteria that seemed to do the job,
|
|
and we hope to find out whether we've really done the job.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We think that we have addressed the specific deal between Novell and
|
|
Microsoft sufficiently well with the other requirement, the one that
|
|
is aimed at Microsoft's role in that deal. Even if we post-date the
|
|
effect of the second paragraph, the one that aims at the Novell role,
|
|
such that it doesn't apply to Novell, we've dealt with that particular
|
|
deal. But if we have drawn the lines well enough, or if we can, then
|
|
we'll make it apply both to existing and to new deals. It's a
|
|
decision we haven't made yet.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[52:00, end]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Note: for more information on GPLv3, see <a href="gplv3.html">FSFE's
|
|
GPLv3 page</a> and the background and related documents linked at the
|
|
top of this page]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|
|
|