You cannot select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
1539 lines
62 KiB
HTML
1539 lines
62 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Richard Stallman from the fifth
|
|
international GPLv3 conference, Tokyo, Japan; 2006-11-21</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 at the 5th international
|
|
GPLv3 conference; 21st November 2006</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
See our <a href="gplv3.html">GPLv3 project</a> page for information
|
|
on <a href="gplv3#participate">how to participate</a>. And you may
|
|
be interested in
|
|
our <a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Transcripts#licences">list of
|
|
transcripts on GPLv3 and free software licences</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The following is a transcript of Richard Stallman's presentation
|
|
made at the <a href="http://gplv3.fsij.org/">fifth international
|
|
GPLv3 conference</a>, organised by FSIJ and AIST in Tokyo, Japan.
|
|
From the same event, there is also
|
|
a <a href="tokyo-ciaran-transcript">transcript Ciaran O'Riordan's
|
|
talk</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<!-- <p>Video and audio recordings are available:</p> -->
|
|
|
|
<!-- <ul> -->
|
|
<!-- <li>Audio: <a href=""></a></li> -->
|
|
<!-- <li>Video: <a href=""></a></li> -->
|
|
<!-- </ul> -->
|
|
|
|
<p>Transcription of this presentation was undertaken
|
|
by Ciarán O'Riordan.
|
|
Please support work such as this by <a href="/help/donate">donating
|
|
to FSFE</a>, joining <a href="https://my.fsfe.org/donate">the Fellowship
|
|
of FSFE</a>, and by encouraging others to do so.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The speech was made in English. See also:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://gplv3.fsij.org/#Resources">http://gplv3.fsij.org/#Resources</a>
|
|
- all recordings from the event</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://gplv3.mex.ad.jp/sdogg/sd_ogg_2006_1121_1300_rms_speech.ogg">The
|
|
recording of Richard Stallman's talk</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Presentation sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#why-update">Why does the licence need updating?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#v1v2">About versions 1 and 2</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#internationalisation">Internationalisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#compatibility">Licence compatibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation">Preventing tivoisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tc1">Tivoisation and Treacherous Computing</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#tc2">General comments on Treacherous Computing</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#patents">Software patents</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#novell-ms">The Novell and Microsoft example</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#net-distribution">Internet distribution instead of mail order</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#termination">Licence termination</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#patent-retaliation">Narrow patent retaliation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#dmca-eucd">Undermining the DMCA and EUCD</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q1">Q1: What are the differences between open source and Free Software?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q2">Q2: How is copyright law affected by Disney and Creative Commons?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q3">Q3: Should Free Software include copyright notices?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q4">Q4: What about patents owned by children?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q5">Q5: Can you further explain the cure clause idea?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q6">Q6: What if someone sets up companies in a cycle?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q7">Q7: "Use freely" has another meaning regarding patents...</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q8">Q8: What other movements is the Free Software movement similar to?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q9">Q9: What about open source licences?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q10">Q10: Will there be Free Software licences that are GPLv3-incompatible?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q11">Q11: Will FSF make further variants of the GPL, like the LGPL is?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q12">Q12: What's happening with the GFDL and GSFDL?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q13">Q13: Does using a GPL'd font constitute linking?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2>The presentation</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="why-update">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Why does the licence need updating?]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Welcome to our event. Since you've already heard from Niibe all the
|
|
basic things that I would usually talk about in my speeches, I'm going
|
|
to start right in on GPL version three.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version two was developed in 1991. The community was very
|
|
different then. It was much smaller. There were probably hundreds of
|
|
Free Software packages instead of tens of thousands. And there was no
|
|
free operating system.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
|
|
As a result, the amount of pressure that people who were effectively
|
|
our adversaries and wanted to cheat were placing on us and placing on
|
|
our licences was much less. Since that time, Free Software has become
|
|
far more popular with tens of millions of users.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD.
|
|
Unfortunately, nearly all the versions that people use include
|
|
non-Free Software, but basically they are free systems.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And there are now many companies that are looking for loopholes,
|
|
trying to defeat the goal of the GNU GPL which is to ensure all users
|
|
freedom. The reason I wrote the GNU GPL was to make sure that when I
|
|
release a program as Free Software, all of you get the four freedoms.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So the point is, I wont be satisfied if only the users who get the
|
|
program from me have freedom. I want to make sure that no matter how
|
|
the program reaches you, whether it has been changed or not, all of
|
|
you get freedom. The basic idea of the GNU GPL is to establish the
|
|
four freedoms as inalienable rights, that is, rights that nobody can
|
|
lose, except through wrong doing. You can't sell them. We're not
|
|
going to have any selling yourself into slavery in our community of
|
|
freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="v1v2">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: About
|
|
versions 1 and 2]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Back in 1991, we had seen two ways of trying to make software
|
|
non-free. One was to release only a binary and not let users have the
|
|
source code. And the other was to place restrictive licence
|
|
conditions on it. These had been seen in the 1980s, so even the
|
|
earliest GNU licences were designed to prevent that kind of abuse.
|
|
They required distribution of source code and they say you can't add
|
|
any other licence terms. You must pass on the program, including any
|
|
changes of yours, under the exact same licence under which you got it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 237 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Around 1990, I found out
|
|
about <a href="http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html">the
|
|
danger of software patents</a>. So in GPL version 2, we developed the
|
|
section that we called "liberty or death for the program",
|
|
although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have
|
|
titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence
|
|
that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you
|
|
couldn't distribute the program at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, what's the logic here? The idea is that patent holders would try
|
|
to corrupt individual distributors of Free Software, trying to get
|
|
them to sign specific deals to pay for permission to do so, and
|
|
therefore we faced the danger that patent holders would divide our
|
|
community and that this would make our community weak.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In a country that is stupid enough to allow software patents, which
|
|
I'm sad to say includes your country [Japan] and includes my country
|
|
[USA], there's nothing we can do to prevent the danger that patent
|
|
holders will use their patents to destroy Free Software, to drive it
|
|
underground.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But, there's an even worse thing they might be able to do, and that is
|
|
make the software effectively non-free. If they could create a
|
|
situation where individual users or individual distributors pay for
|
|
permission, the software is effectively non-free. The decision I made
|
|
was that we would try to prevent that danger. That danger is worse
|
|
for two reasons. First, because a proprietary program which takes
|
|
away a users' freedom is worse than no program at all. And second
|
|
because that offers the patent holder a way to make money and would be
|
|
more tempting than merely to cause destruction.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, Section 7 of GPL version 2 was designed to prevent that. And that
|
|
was the main change in GPL version 2. However, today we've seen
|
|
several more kinds of threats, as well as other issues that call for
|
|
changes. The basic idea of GPL version 3 is unchanged: to protect the
|
|
four freedoms for all users, but the details have to adapt to today's
|
|
circumstances.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This means that the changes in GPL version 3 do not have any common
|
|
theme. They're all addressed to details, to specifics. Some very
|
|
important, some secondary, but every change is in some specific
|
|
detail because there's no change in the spirit.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So let me go through the most important of these changes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="internationalisation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Internationalisation]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One of them is better internationalisation. I developed the earlier
|
|
versions of the GPL working with a lawyer, but this lawyer was not an
|
|
expert on the laws of other countries. We simply based our inputs on
|
|
knowing that copyright law is mostly similar around the World.
|
|
However, now we've made a large effort to consult lawyers from various
|
|
different countries, to make sure that we will get similar results in
|
|
all countries. To make this happen, we have eliminated certain words
|
|
such as "distribute", from the GPL version 3. It turns out
|
|
that various countries have different definitions for the word
|
|
|
|
"distribute". So we have tried to avoid that word. We
|
|
coined a couple of new terms, in order to express ourselves better.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For instance, there's the term "propagate" which loosely
|
|
means copying, but we've given it a precise definition that is meant
|
|
to buffer it against variations in copyright law between countries.
|
|
Another term called "convey" which loosely means
|
|
distributing copies, but again, we've defined it in a way buffers it
|
|
against international variations. So the bulk of the GPL gives
|
|
conditions for propagating and conveying the program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="compatibility">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Licence compatibility]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another area of change has to do with compatibility with other
|
|
licences. Back in the early 90s, there were only a few different Free
|
|
Software licences, and the ones people generally used were either the
|
|
GNU GPL, or simple permissive licences like the X11 licence and the
|
|
original BSD licence. The X11 licence was compatible with the GPL.
|
|
You could merge code with the GPL version 1 or 2 with code under the
|
|
X11 licence. The original BSD licence is incompatible because of the
|
|
obnoxious advertising clause, but in the 90s we convinced the
|
|
University of California to relicense all of BSD under the revised BSD
|
|
licence, which gets rid of the advertising clause, and that is
|
|
compatible with GPL version 2.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
By the way, you should never use the term "BSD-style licensing"
|
|
because of the ambiguity. The difference between these two licences
|
|
is quite important. One is compatible with the GPL and the other is
|
|
not. It's very important to call people's attention to the difference
|
|
between those two licences. However, starting in 1999 I believe, with
|
|
Mozilla, many other Free Software licences have been developed, most
|
|
of which are not compatible with the GPL. GPL version 3 is designed
|
|
to be compatible with two important licences: the Apache licence and
|
|
the Eclipse licence. It will be possible to merge code under those
|
|
licences into GPL3 covered software once the GPL version 3 is really
|
|
out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 752 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And while we were at it, we decided to formalise and clearly explain
|
|
what it means to give additional permission as a special exception.
|
|
That's a practice that we have been doing for many years. The simple
|
|
library that comes with GCC that does very low level tasks, supporting
|
|
certain language constructs, has a special exception on it saying
|
|
basically that you can link it into almost anything. But there was
|
|
some confusion about what it means to have such an exception so we
|
|
decided to spell it out, to make it clear that when you give
|
|
additional permission, people can remove that additional permission,
|
|
because really what you have done is you have made two separate
|
|
statements: (A) you can distribute this under the GPL, and (B) I also
|
|
give you permission for this and that. It follows that anyone who is
|
|
redistributing that software or distributing modified versions can
|
|
pass it along under the GPL or he can reconfirm the other permission,
|
|
or he can do both. So, if the other permission just says you can do
|
|
one little extra thing, it makes no sense by itself. That would be
|
|
useless. So basically, you've got to keep the GPL, but you either
|
|
keep the added provision or not. So in GPL version 3 this is spelled
|
|
out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We also explain that there are a few kinds of additional requirements
|
|
that can appear on code that gets included or merged into the GPL
|
|
covered program. Now, some of these are not new. There are essential
|
|
trivial requirements in the X11 licence and the revised BSD licence,
|
|
and because they're trivial, our interpretation is that there is no
|
|
conflict with the GPL, but we decided to make that completely
|
|
explicit. But in addition, there are some substantive requirements
|
|
that are not in the GPL that we will now allow to be added. This is
|
|
how we achieve compatibility with the Apache licence and the Eclipse
|
|
licence. After all, the reason they are incompatible with GPL version
|
|
2 is that they have requirements that are not in GPL version 2. Those
|
|
requirements are not part of GPL version 3 either, but GPL version 3
|
|
explicitly says that you are allowed to add those kinds of
|
|
requirements. That is how GPLv3 will be compatible with those
|
|
licences, because it specifically permits a limited set of additional
|
|
requirements which include the requirements in those licences.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 986 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
While we were doing this we decided to try to put an end to a misuse of
|
|
the GPL. You may occasionally see a program which says "This program
|
|
is released under the GNU GPL but you're not allowed to use it
|
|
commercially", or some other attempt to add another requirement.
|
|
That's actually self-contradictory and its meaning is ambiguous, so
|
|
nobody can be sure what will happen if a judge looks at that. After
|
|
all, GPL version 2 says you can release a modified version under GPL
|
|
version 2. So if you take this program with its inconsistent licence
|
|
and you release a modified version, what licence are you supposed to
|
|
use? You could argue for two different possibilities.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We can't stop people making their software under licences that are
|
|
more restrictive than the GPL, we can't stop them from releasing
|
|
non-Free Software, but we can try to prevent them from doing so in a
|
|
misleading and self-contradictory way, after all, when the program
|
|
says GPL version 2 but you can't use it commercially, that's not
|
|
really released under GPL version 2, and it's not Free Software, and
|
|
if you tried to combine that with code that really is released under
|
|
GPL version 2, you would be violating GPL2. Because this inconsistent
|
|
licence starts out by saying "GPL version 2", people are
|
|
very likely to be mislead. They may think it's available under GPL
|
|
version 2, they may think they're allowed to combine these modules.
|
|
We want to get rid of this confusing practice. And therefore we've
|
|
stated that if you see a problem that states GPL version 3 as its
|
|
licence, but has additional requirements not explicitly permitted in
|
|
section 7 then you're entitled to remove them. We hope that this will
|
|
convince the people that want to use more restrictive licences that
|
|
they should do it in an unambiguous way. That is, they should take
|
|
the text, edit it, and make their own licence, which might be free or
|
|
might not, depending on the details, but at least it won't be the GNU
|
|
GPL, so people won't get confused.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1169 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tivoisation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Preventing tivoisation]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another major change is a response to a new method of trying to
|
|
deprive the users of freedom. In broad terms we refer to this as
|
|
tivoisation. It's the practice of designing hardware so that a
|
|
modified version cannot function properly. Now, I do not mean by this
|
|
the fact that when you modify it you might break it. Of course that's
|
|
true. But of course you also might modify it carefully and avoid
|
|
making a mistake and then you have not broken the program, you would
|
|
expect it to function. But tivoised machines will not allow any
|
|
modified version to function correctly even if you have done your
|
|
modification properly.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For instance, the Tivo itself is the prototype of tivoisation. The
|
|
Tivo contains a small GNU/Linux operating system, thus, several
|
|
programs under the GNU GPL. And, as far as I know, the Tivo company
|
|
does obey GPL version 2. They provide the users with source code and
|
|
the users can then modify it and compile it and then install it in the
|
|
Tivo. That's where the trouble begins because the Tivo will not run
|
|
modified versions, the Tivo contains hardware designed to detect that
|
|
the software has been changed and shuts down. So, regardless of the
|
|
details of your modification, your modified version will not run in
|
|
your Tivo.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tc1">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Tivoisation and Treacherous Computing]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
|
|
This is the basic method of tivoisation but there are more subtle
|
|
methods which involve Treacherous Computing. Treacherous Computing is
|
|
the term we use to describe a practice of designing people's computers
|
|
so that the users can't control them. In fact, the perpetrators of
|
|
this scheme don't want you to have real computers. What is a
|
|
computer, after all? A computer is a universal programmable machine,
|
|
one that can be programmed to carry out any computation, but those
|
|
machines are designed so that there are computations you can't make
|
|
them do. They're designed not to be real computers. Specifically,
|
|
they are designed so that data or websites can be set up to
|
|
communicate only with particular software and set up to make it
|
|
impossible for any other program to communicate with that data or
|
|
those websites.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1403 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One of the ways this works is through remote attestation. The idea is
|
|
that a website will be able to check what software is running on your
|
|
computer, and if you have changed anything, the website will refuse to
|
|
talk to your computer. In other words, you can make modified
|
|
software, you can install it on your computer, but, that modified
|
|
software is forbidden even to try to communicate with the website in
|
|
the same way that the other version would do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Microsoft has been working on a scheme for years, which might be part
|
|
of Windows Vista, which involves encrypting files in such a way that
|
|
only a particular program can possibly decrypt them. Even if you know
|
|
the algorithm, the hardware is supposed to make it impossible for you
|
|
to write another program that will decrypt those files.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Thus, once again, you might be allowed in theory to modify the
|
|
program, but in practice you would have no chance in making a modified
|
|
version that can even try to operate on the same data as the version
|
|
you got.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
These are all ways of effectively making our software non-free. GPL
|
|
version 3 is designed to block them all. The requirement is that
|
|
users must be able to get whatever is necessary so that they can
|
|
authorise their modified versions to function in the same machine such
|
|
that they can succeed in operating on the same data, and talking to
|
|
the same networks.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1550 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In the current discussion draft this is done by defining those
|
|
materials as part of the corresponding source, however, we've decided
|
|
to move that into section 6 which authorises distribution of
|
|
binaries. And instead of calling those materials part of the source,
|
|
we'll simply state that making them available is a condition for
|
|
permission to distribute the binaries.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tc2">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: General comments on Treacherous Computing]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Treacherous Computing is an instance of a very dangerous phenomenon,
|
|
namely a conspiracy of companies to restrict the public - to restrict
|
|
the public's access to technology. Such conspiracies ought to be a
|
|
crime. The executives of those companies should be tried, and if
|
|
convicted, sent to prison for conspiring to restrict the public's
|
|
access to technology. However, that sort of policy would have
|
|
required leaders that believe in government of the people, by the
|
|
people, for the people. What we have today is government of the
|
|
people, by the flunkies, for the corporations.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Far from trying to protect us from such conspiracies, our governments
|
|
today show how undemocratic they are by supporting the companies
|
|
against us, supporting the conspiracies against us. Laws that
|
|
prohibit circumvention of these conspiracies essentially deputise the
|
|
conspiracies as police men, giving them power over the citizens.
|
|
Every government that supports such a law shows that it is on the side
|
|
of publishers, on the side of Hollywood, on the side of the record
|
|
companies, against its own citizens. It has become an arm of
|
|
occupation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Nonetheless, we are going to fight against tivoisation and Treacherous
|
|
Computing with all of our abilities.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="patents">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Software patents]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another threat to Free Software is from software patents. GPL2's
|
|
section 7, which is now section 12, deals with one of these threats:
|
|
the threat of a distributor signing a contract that gives it the
|
|
patent licence for the software but in a limited way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software
|
|
patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing
|
|
GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if
|
|
the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a
|
|
patent on some particular computational technique used in the
|
|
program. I made a terrible mistake when I said "has a patent on the
|
|
program", that's not how patents work. I know better, and yet I still
|
|
made this mistake. There's no such thing as a patent on a program,
|
|
software patents don't work that way. Every software patent is a
|
|
monopoly on a certain kind of technical functionality or method. A
|
|
program violates the patent if anywhere inside the program it
|
|
implements that method or that functionality. The result is that one
|
|
program can infringe any number of patents at the same time.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
[See note hereafter] Two years ago, a thorough study found that the kernel
|
|
Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the US. Of
|
|
course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">NOTE from Richard Stallman:</span> I made
|
|
a mistake when I said Linux infringes 283 software patents. In fact,
|
|
Ravicher's study found 283 US software patents that look like they might
|
|
prohibit part of the code of Linux. Whether those patents are actually
|
|
valid, nobody knows.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Linux is one of many large programs in the GNU/Linux system. Many
|
|
other programs, free or not, are also large, and large programs
|
|
generally combine thousands of ideas.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
I expect that a similar study of any large program, free or
|
|
non-free, whether written by me or by Microsoft or anyone else,
|
|
would similarly find hundreds of patents that threaten to prohibit
|
|
it. In other words, with software patents, every developer of
|
|
large programs faces many threats. The solution is: don't allow
|
|
software patents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">END OF NOTE</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1885 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
That is the only example of this kind of study, as far as I know. But
|
|
probably any large program infringes hundreds of different patents at
|
|
once. What if a distributor of the program has a patent on some
|
|
computation inside the program and distributes the program to others,
|
|
and when they try to redistribute, the patent holder says "We're going
|
|
to sue you for patent infringement if you try". We didn't think this
|
|
was an issue because in the US, when that company distributes the
|
|
software under the GPL, they're telling people "We have no objections
|
|
if you do what the GPL says you can do" and so if they tried to sue
|
|
those same people for patent infringement later, they would lose.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, we found out that this is not true all around the World. So
|
|
GPL version 3 carries an explicit patent licence which is following
|
|
the lead of the Mozilla Public License. I think that was the first
|
|
one which contained an explicit patent licence. Basically, all this
|
|
says is that none of the people who distributed the program on it's
|
|
path to reaching you can turn around and sue you for patent
|
|
infringement on the patents that covered the code that passed through
|
|
their hands.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is not as broad as it could possibly be, but it seems right
|
|
because it's pretty much the same as the implicit patent licence that
|
|
US law gives people.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="novell-ms">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: The Novell and Microsoft example]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the
|
|
users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the
|
|
Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given
|
|
Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not
|
|
come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is
|
|
rather limited to Novell's customers alone.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this
|
|
now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL
|
|
version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're
|
|
going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will
|
|
block such deals. We were already concerned about possibilities like
|
|
this, namely, the possibility that a distributor might receive a
|
|
patent licence which did not explicitly impose limits on downstream
|
|
recipients but simply failed to protect them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
What if one company pays Microsoft for a patent licence where
|
|
Microsoft says "Alright, we won't sue you, but we're just not
|
|
making any promises about your customers if they redistribute
|
|
it". We had already written a downstream shielding provision
|
|
into GPL version 3 saying that if you convey the program, and you are
|
|
benefitting from a patent licence that is not available, that does not
|
|
extend to the downstream users, then you have to do something to
|
|
shield them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is, it turns out, inadequate in two ways. First of all,
|
|
|
|
"shielding them" is vague. We're replacing that with a
|
|
specific list of methods, and second, once again it assumes that the
|
|
distributor has received a patent licence, so the Microsoft/Novell
|
|
deal cunningly does not give Novell the patent licence, only Novell's
|
|
customers.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, now that we have seen this possibility, we're not going to have
|
|
trouble drafting the language that will block it off. We're going to
|
|
say not just that if you receive the patent licence, but if you have
|
|
arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the
|
|
downstream recipients, that that's not allowed. That you have to make
|
|
sure that the downstream recipients fully get the freedoms that
|
|
they're supposed to have. The precise words, we haven't figured out
|
|
yet. That's what Eben Moglen is working on now.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 2249 secs - end of part I]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="net-distribution">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Internet distribution instead of mail order]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So these are the major changes. Some minor changes are also
|
|
important. For instance, we've decided to permit distributing
|
|
binaries and making the source code available only on the network.
|
|
GPL version 2 says if you distribute a binary without source code, you
|
|
have to offer the source code by mail order. This was a specific
|
|
decision which I made because in 1991, most people's network
|
|
connections were too slow for it to be feasible to download large
|
|
amounts of source code over the 'net. I believed at the time, and I
|
|
still believe that at that time, to allow someone to distribute
|
|
binaries, and then to make the source code available only on the 'net
|
|
would have made a large number of users completely unable, in
|
|
practice, to get the source code.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, now there are services where you can pay a fairly small
|
|
amount of money to them, and they will download a CD-ROM's worth of
|
|
material and mail it to you anywhere in the World. As a result, I've
|
|
concluded that we can make this change.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="termination">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Licence termination]</span>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another important minor change has to do with termination when someone
|
|
violates the licence. A GNU/Linux distribution today involves
|
|
thousands of programs, and anyone who accidentally violates the
|
|
licence, for instance, puts the wrong source code up, has, under GPL
|
|
version 2, terminated his licences for everything. At that point, he
|
|
has to go to all the copyright holders, and ask for permission to
|
|
start distributing again, but that's basically impossible. You could
|
|
never find all those developers, especially those who contributed
|
|
fifteen years ago.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
What we've decided to do is that if you stop your violation, then any
|
|
given copyright holder has 60 days from that point to complain. This
|
|
is a kind of statute of limitations. As long as you're continuing to
|
|
violate the licence, any copyright holder is entitled to notify you
|
|
you're violating the licence and once he notifies you he has the right
|
|
to terminate the licence. But, if you stop violating, then the
|
|
copyright holders have only 60 more days to notify you, and if they
|
|
don't notify you and sixty days go by with no violations, then you're
|
|
safe.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This means that if you accidentally violate the licence and you fix
|
|
it, probably nobody's going to complain to you and 60 days will go by
|
|
and you'll be ok. Or if a few copyright holders complain to you, then
|
|
you just have to negotiate with them, and say "Look, it was an
|
|
accident, I fixed it already and you see I'm trying to do the right
|
|
thing, and will you please give me my distribution rights back", and
|
|
they'll almost certainly say yes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're considering a further change in this direction that would say
|
|
that a violation can cure itself if you're a first time violator and
|
|
you correct your practices and a certain period of time goes by. We
|
|
have to be careful in this though, because it's very important for GPL
|
|
enforcement that the developer be able to get a preliminary injunction
|
|
to stop distribution. So we're carefully studying the conditions for
|
|
doing so in various countries, and if we can put in such a cure
|
|
feature in a way that does not harm GPL enforcement then we will
|
|
probably do so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 308 secs, part II]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="patent-retaliation">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Narrow patent retaliation]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another small change is a limited kind of patent retaliation. We're
|
|
concerned with the use of software patents in yet another situation.
|
|
There is a common practice where you get a GPL covered program and you
|
|
modify it to do exactly what you want, and then you run it. And you
|
|
might, say, run it privately in this way and anyone can do this, it's
|
|
legitimate. But we're concerned with the danger that the company
|
|
which does this might have a patent on some of the techniques that
|
|
they put into their modifications, and then they might threaten others
|
|
with patent law suits if they try to make similar modifications. So
|
|
we put in a carefully designed provision that stops such a company
|
|
from making further modifications to their software if they do this,
|
|
which would mean that it would become unmaintainable, and thus it
|
|
becomes a very risky business practice.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="dmca-eucd">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Undermining the DMCA and EUCD]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's one other change that's worth mentioning, I think. That is
|
|
section 3. Section 3 is designed to counter-attack against the laws
|
|
where the government supports the conspiracies to restrict the
|
|
public. This contains one part which is designed to address the
|
|
Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US, and another part which is
|
|
aimed at the European Union Copyright Directive. These two laws do
|
|
effectively the same thing, but they are written in different ways,
|
|
and you have to take them on in different ways. The method that will
|
|
work for the US doesn't work for Europe, and likewise isn't an
|
|
inconvenience there, and the method that works for the EU Copyright
|
|
Directive won't work for the US DMCA. If there's something we can do
|
|
to extend this to some other countries, we'll be glad to do it, as
|
|
long as we can be sure it doesn't cause trouble. We don't want to
|
|
cause trouble over there [Richard points] while we help over here.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, at this point, I guess I will ask for questions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 578 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1</span>: I have two questions.
|
|
What are the differences between the definition of open-source
|
|
software and the definition of Free Software, in your words?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, first
|
|
of all, the principal difference between the Free Software movement
|
|
and the open source activity is that open source is a development
|
|
model and Free Software is a social movement. The term "open
|
|
source" was coined to avoid ever mentioning ethical issues.
|
|
Specifically the ethical issues which are the centre of the Free
|
|
Software movement. We are fighting for freedom for ourselves and for
|
|
you. We are campaigning for social solidarity. Freedom and social
|
|
solidarity are our goals. Those are the goals of our social movement.
|
|
Proprietary software is evil because it attacks freedom and social
|
|
solidarity. When a program is proprietary, that means that the social
|
|
system of its distribution and use is unethical. Proprietary software
|
|
development harms society, it attacks society. It's a social problem.
|
|
Our goal is to correct, to eliminate that social problem. We make all
|
|
our software free because that's the only ethically legitimate way to
|
|
release software and we aim to replace proprietary software with Free
|
|
Software because proprietary software mistreats its users.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
All of that is what the supporters of open source don't want to say.
|
|
They don't even want to raise the issue, so they developed a way of
|
|
talking about our software without mentioning the ethical deeper
|
|
levels of the issue. That's why they talk about a development model.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
They say that allowing users to change and redistribute software
|
|
creates the possibility of using a certain development model and they
|
|
say that this development model makes for more powerful and reliable
|
|
software. Maybe they're right, but I think that's a secondary issue
|
|
compared with our freedom and our social solidarity.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So if I am offered a choice between a proprietary program which is
|
|
powerful and reliable and a free program which is not, I choose the
|
|
free program because that I can do in freedom. I'd rather make some
|
|
practical sacrifices to reject oppression.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But suppose you want both? Suppose you want freedom and solidarity,
|
|
and you want powerful reliable software? How can you get it? You
|
|
can't get that starting with the powerful, reliable, proprietary
|
|
program because there is no way you can liberate that program. The
|
|
only way you can get that, your ideal goal, is to start from the free
|
|
program, technically inadequate as it may be, because you do have the
|
|
option of improving it. That is the only path that can possibly ever
|
|
get you to your ideal situation. Insist on freedom and make the
|
|
program better.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Because of these basic philosophical differences, you will see
|
|
different responses from open source supporters and Free Software
|
|
activists in some situations. People have been able to overlook the
|
|
difference because when it comes to working together on a Free
|
|
Software project, it doesn't really matter what a person's
|
|
philosophical beliefs are if he wants to contribute. For instance, in
|
|
developing Free Software, when people ask to participate, we don't ask
|
|
them whether you support Free Software or open source, or maybe
|
|
neither. We don't need to ask them, we just say "Oh, you're
|
|
welcome to participate, thank you for your work". People
|
|
regardless of their views can join in the same Free Software project.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 900 secs, part II]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But consider, for instance, the proposal for "open source
|
|
DRM". Because open source doesn't concern itself with the users
|
|
freedom, open source supporters see no contradiction in supporting the
|
|
use of their development model to make DRM software. So they say, if
|
|
you let people redistribute and change the DRM software, you could
|
|
make more powerful and reliable DRM software. Of course, it's
|
|
intended to be used with tivoisation, so for the end user it will not
|
|
be Free Software. The end user will not have freedom because the
|
|
whole point of Digital Restrictions Management is to take away the
|
|
users' freedom. Here, the philosophical difference really matters.
|
|
If what you want is powerful reliable software, you might think that
|
|
powerful, reliable DRM is a good thing. If what you want is to have
|
|
freedom and to help everyone else have freedom, DRM is a bad thing and
|
|
tivoisation is an attack on your freedom. And so we want all DRM
|
|
software to be unreliable because we want it to be cracked. If
|
|
someone is trying to restrict all of us, we don't want him to do a
|
|
good job. Only fools would help him do a good job of subjugating us
|
|
all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version 3 does not prohibit DRM as such. One of the basic
|
|
principles of Free Software, part of freedom number 1, is that you
|
|
should be free to change the software to do whatever you wish, and
|
|
freedom 3 says you are free to distribute your modified version. GPL
|
|
version 3 respects these principles. You will be allowed under GPL
|
|
version 3, just as you are allowed under GPL version 2, to modify a
|
|
free program by adding DRM restrictions and then distributing that to
|
|
the public. However, you should also be free, when you receive that -
|
|
that is a different "you" who is the user who receives that
|
|
program - is supposed to be free to modify it again by turning off the
|
|
restrictions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In GPL version 3, we don't say that Sony can't put in DRM. What we
|
|
do, is make sure you are free to take out the DRM.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
You had a second question.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1118 secs, part II]
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1b">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1b</span>: I'm concerned about the
|
|
transition period from version 2 to version 3. You said that the
|
|
MS/Novell deal will break version 3, but as far as I know, Linux will
|
|
use version 2.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Linux is just
|
|
one of many programs that uses the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1c">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1c</span>: From the customers point
|
|
of view. They will receive components that will use different
|
|
copyright.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: That's right.
|
|
That's true already. Remember, the GNU/Linux system has programs with
|
|
many different incompatible licences.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
All GNU/Linux systems at this point include Mozilla, they all include
|
|
TeX. Both of those programs have licences that are incompatible with
|
|
GPL version 2 and with GPL version 3. Well, actually, Mozilla is also
|
|
under one of the GNU licences, so that's not a good example,
|
|
sorry. But Apache, every system includes Apache, and that has a
|
|
licence which is incompatible with GPL version 2. It will be
|
|
compatible with GPL version 3, but today it's incompatible. But this
|
|
isn't a problem because these are different programs.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1d">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1d</span>: So, you are saying, you
|
|
don't see any specific problem at this moment?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: There's no
|
|
such thing as a transition period because we can't assume there there
|
|
will be a time when everybody has moved to GPL version 3, maybe some
|
|
projects will never move. But there's no difficulty in having some
|
|
programs in the system under GPL2 and other programs under GPL3.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q2">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q2</span>: Since the GPL is based on
|
|
copyright law, how is it affected by recent actions by Creative
|
|
Commons or Disney's attempts to extend copyright?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Creative
|
|
Commons just develops copyright licences. Nothing that Creative
|
|
Commons does has any effect on what the GNU GPL means. Some of the
|
|
Creative Commons licences are usable for certain purposes, and some of
|
|
them are so restrictive that they should never be used for anything,
|
|
like the developing countries licence, and some of the sampling
|
|
licences. They're bad. That's why I no longer support Creative
|
|
Commons, but nonetheless, they're just developing a bunch of copyright
|
|
licences. Lots of other people have written copyright licences too,
|
|
and those don't change copyright law.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
|
|
However, extending the length of time of copyright is very bad, but it
|
|
also doesn't interfere with the meaning of any Free Software licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q3">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q3</span>: When using GPL version 3,
|
|
should we still write a copyright notice?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes, when you
|
|
release Free Software, it's normally copyrighted, and therefore you
|
|
should put a copyright notice on it, and then underneath the copyright
|
|
notice you put a licence notice which says "You are permitted to
|
|
use this material under the following licence". That's true for
|
|
GPL version 2, and it's true for GPL version 3, and it's true for all
|
|
the other Free Software licences.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q4">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4</span>: [Question asked in
|
|
Japanese]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Eh, no.
|
|
Basically, software patents obtained by children does not seem likely
|
|
to be a large part of the danger of software patents. So I suspect
|
|
it's a minor detail.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q4b">
|
|
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4b</span>: No, no, no. [in Japanese]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, when
|
|
the FSF asks for a copyright assignment, we ask if the developer is a
|
|
minor, and if so we ask for the parents to sign their approval on it.
|
|
But other developers, they should take some precautions about this,
|
|
but we can't do it for them and we can't make them do it. However, I
|
|
suspect it will not be a big problem unless Microsoft starts hunting
|
|
them and bribing their parents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Which I suppose it might try to do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5</span>: I would like to hear more
|
|
about the cure clause of GPL version 3.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, we
|
|
don't have one yet, it's just a proposal we're thinking about, and if
|
|
we can make it work, we might do it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1592 secs, part II]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5b">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5b</span>: Actually I would like to
|
|
hear about its reasoning, because it seems it might open a loophole...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: No, you've
|
|
misunderstood. What this means is, if you were distributing the
|
|
software wrong, and thus violating the GPL but you know it and you
|
|
stop, and you've never done it before, then after a certain time you
|
|
would regain your right to distribute the program properly. But since
|
|
this would only apply to the first violation, say with any given
|
|
program, the hope is that we could design it so that you wouldn't be
|
|
able to use this maliciously, but we're just investigating the idea.
|
|
It may or it may not turn out to be workable. If we can't make it
|
|
work in a way that doesn't create dangers, we won't do it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5c">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5c</span>: Actually, what I wanted
|
|
to ask is where it came from, where did the idea for this clause come
|
|
from?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I don't know
|
|
where it came from. Perhaps some of the companies that are
|
|
participating in some of our discussion groups suggested it, I don't
|
|
remember. I don't think I ever knew precisely where, and if I did
|
|
know, I forgot it because I didn't care.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
[Time: 1702 secs, part II]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q6">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q6</span>: If I wanted to violate the
|
|
GPLv3, with this clause, I could start a company that violated it, and
|
|
then terminate the company and start another one, and so forth.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I see.
|
|
That's an interesting point. Well, it's conceivable that one could do
|
|
that anyway. It's sort of hard to enforce against someone doing that.
|
|
We have to find a way to enforce it against the person who started all
|
|
these companies because in an ordinary enforcement action, you would
|
|
enforce it against the entity that is doing the distribution. If that
|
|
entity disappears and a new one starts up, it might be hard. But if
|
|
they were all being done by one company, you could probably sue that
|
|
company. We would say to the judge "look, it's really them,
|
|
they're the ones who are really starting A company, and B, and C, and
|
|
D". So we would get an injunction against the master, not the
|
|
tentacles.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But again, we would simply have to make sure that for any kind of
|
|
automatic cure, that it's smart enough, that it notices that this one
|
|
company is doing all these different things.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q7">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7</span>: I'd like to know more
|
|
about this term "use freely". In patent terminology, to use
|
|
something freely means that as long as you pay the licence fees, then
|
|
you can use it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: That's not
|
|
Free Software. In any case, when I informally use terminology like
|
|
"to use something freely", I am not referring to any
|
|
country's patent law, and specifically, being free to do something
|
|
means you don't have to pay for permission to do it. When we describe
|
|
the four freedoms, when we say that freedom zero is the freedom to run
|
|
the program as you wish, part of that is: you're not required to pay
|
|
anyone for permission to run that program as you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And, freedom 2 is the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
|
|
That means you don't have to pay for permission to do so, you don't
|
|
have to pay for each copy or negotiate with anybody. You're simply
|
|
free outright to go and do it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If there's a program that you're allowed to run only if you pay
|
|
somebody, that's not Free Software. Therefore, the GNU GPL aims to
|
|
make sure that nobody can create such a situation. If somebody can
|
|
create a situation where people feel they must pay in order to be
|
|
allowed to run a GPL covered program, then that is a flaw, a failing
|
|
in the GPL and we are doing our best to make sure that can't happen.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q8">
|
|
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q8</span>: This social movement
|
|
touches on many different disciplines and areas. Apart from software,
|
|
do you see other movements with a similar spirit?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, the
|
|
ideas of Free Software, I believe, extend to other kinds of works of
|
|
authorship that serve functional practical purposes such as, for
|
|
instance, recipes - which are, for the most part, free.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And, educational works such as text books and manuals, they should
|
|
also be free. And reference works, like dictionaries and
|
|
encyclopedias, so Wikipedia is an example of a free reference work,
|
|
and there are several others, showing that we are making good progress
|
|
in extending the idea of freedom to these other useful works.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
More broadly, farmers in many countries are opposed to patents on
|
|
crops, which deny them the freedom to copy their plants. This
|
|
restriction is unjust in the same way that proprietary software is
|
|
unjust. However, we should be careful not to try to simplify life
|
|
down to just one issue. There are many ethical issues in life which
|
|
are different, they are not isomorphic, they are not analogous. I
|
|
don't believe that all the important ethical issues in life can be
|
|
modelled on the Free Software movement.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
At a very broad level, the biggest political battle today is democracy
|
|
vs. the corporate masters of the World. Thus, free trade treaties are
|
|
designed to transfer power from governments that can be democratic to
|
|
businesses that never try to be democratic and therefore, free trade
|
|
treaties are dangerous. I believe they should be abolished.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This does not mean I'm against international trade. International
|
|
trade is beneficial for all the reasons that neo-liberal economists
|
|
tell us, but they don't mention the price which we pay in loss of
|
|
democracy. So I say that international trade is a useful thing to
|
|
encourage to the extent we can do so and still preserving the strength
|
|
of democracy. That means that today's free trade treaties have gone
|
|
too far because they turn democracy into an empty shell.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Today, companies find it so easy to move their operations from one
|
|
country to another that they make these countries compete to bow down
|
|
to business which means that no country can really exercise democracy
|
|
anymore. If the people in a country say "We want you to regulate
|
|
business", perhaps to protect the environment, perhaps to protect
|
|
public health, perhaps to protect the general standard of living, the
|
|
politicians of the country respond "We don't dare do this because all
|
|
the businesses will move some place else". Whatever methods of
|
|
encouraging international trade we use, have to be designed so that
|
|
they do not produce this result.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a very broad kind of struggle, and since the 90s, Free
|
|
Software can be seen as being a part of the struggle, even though when
|
|
we began the movement, that was before the age of these free trade
|
|
treaties and the larger context into which our movement fits today
|
|
didn't exist then.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Because fundamentally, this isn't about democracy vs. business.
|
|
Fundamentally this is about making sure everyone's freedom and social
|
|
solidarity is respected. It just happens that this fits into today's
|
|
movement against business-dominated globalisation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Interestingly, Free Software itself is globalisation. Many free
|
|
programs have developers in several continents and are used in all the
|
|
countries of the World, or pretty close. Free Software represents the
|
|
globalisation of human knowledge and human cooperation. When people
|
|
say they are against globalisation, they are simplifying things a
|
|
bit. The issue there is not globalisation in an abstract sense, it's
|
|
one specific kind of globalisation, namely the globalisation of
|
|
business power.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Businesses should never have power, that conflicts with democracy, so
|
|
business power is an injustice and if you globalise something that is
|
|
bad, it becomes a bigger evil. But cooperation and developing and
|
|
disseminating human knowledge is good. If you globalise something
|
|
good, it becomes a bigger good, and that's what the Free Software
|
|
movement does.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 2403 secs, part II ends]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q9">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q9</span>: You mentioned that v3 will
|
|
be compatible with Apache and Eclipse licences. Do you know any open
|
|
source licences that will still be incompatible...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: We're not
|
|
working on open source, we're not interested in open source. By the
|
|
way, some open source licences are not Free Software licences, the
|
|
definition of open source came from the definition of Free Software
|
|
but it followed a circuitous path, and it's written very differently
|
|
and it's interpreted by different people, so they've drawn the lines
|
|
in different places, so most of the open source licences are Free
|
|
Software licences, but there are some licences that the OSI accepted
|
|
that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Therefore, basically we're not interested in open source at all. I
|
|
ask you please not to refer to our work as open source. That would be
|
|
mislabelling us with the slogan of a philosophy we disagree with. And
|
|
therefore, if you wish to have discussions with us, please don't do so
|
|
in a way that supposes that what we are talking about is open source
|
|
because we will have to refuse to participate in that discussion. We
|
|
are not going to accept the labelling of our work as open source, no
|
|
matter what, so you have to use the term Free Software if you wish to
|
|
discuss our work with us.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q9b">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q9b</span>: Thank you for the
|
|
correction.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: So do you
|
|
want to try again?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q10">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10</span>: Yes. Will there still
|
|
be Free Software licences that are incompatible with v3?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes. There
|
|
are some Free Software licences that will have certain kinds of
|
|
requirements which are not totally unacceptable. That's why we
|
|
consider them still to be Free Software licences, but, we're not
|
|
willing to have those requirements come into GPL covered programs.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For instance, some programs say you must change the name if you modify
|
|
it. Ah, we don't want that restriction coming into GPL covered code.
|
|
Some Free Software licences have patent retaliation clauses that we
|
|
consider unjust, for instance, Apple's says if you sue Apple for
|
|
patent infringement, then you lose the right to distribute this
|
|
software. Well, the reason we don't like that one is, suppose Apple
|
|
sued you first, then you just counter-sue, in that case Apple
|
|
committed the aggression and you are just defending yourself, so we
|
|
don't want that kind of patent retaliation in GPL covered programs.
|
|
We didn't consider it so bad as to make their licence non-free, but
|
|
it's too far to allow into GPL covered programs.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And then are licences that are file-level copylefts. The Mozilla
|
|
Public License was the first of these. File-level copylefts say "If
|
|
you modify the files of this program, the modified versions of those
|
|
same files must be under this same licence". Now, that's not as
|
|
strong as the GPL. The GPL says if you modify the program, you're
|
|
whole modified program must be under the GPL. Those file-level
|
|
copylefts, or we might call them weak copylefts, permit the additional
|
|
of separate files which are non-free. They don't really achieve the
|
|
goal of copyleft, but because they made this requirement about the
|
|
file, it's impossible to relicense that file under the GPL. So the
|
|
GPL will always be incompatible with those file-level copyleft
|
|
licences.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Then there's the bizarre licence of TeX, which is incompatible with
|
|
itself.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The licence of TeX says "You can't modify this file, but you can
|
|
distribute it with a change file" and then when TeX is built,
|
|
it's built by patching the standard TeX source code using the change
|
|
file. So, in effect, you can distribute any modified version in that
|
|
way, that's how I convinced myself in 1984 that that was a Free
|
|
Software licence. But if you have two programs under the TeX licence,
|
|
you can't merge them because each one says: anything that contains
|
|
this can only be distributed as a changefile from this. So you have
|
|
two things tugging at each other, each one insisting on being the
|
|
base. So the TeX licence is incompatible with itself, but it's a Free
|
|
Software licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q11">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q11</span>: You just discussed weak
|
|
copyleft. My question is about the Lesser GPL. When you publish a
|
|
weak licence, certain developers will choose it without a good reason.
|
|
OpenOffice.org is an example.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I don't know
|
|
why they did that, but at least it's Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q11b">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q11b</span>: So, do you have any plan
|
|
to provide some additional versions of the GPL?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, we have
|
|
the GNU Lesser GPL, and we can't get rid of it. However, in
|
|
conjunction with GPL version 3, the Lesser GPL will take a new form,
|
|
it will take the form of GPL version 3 plus certain additional
|
|
permissions. The Lesser GPL as it exists today, and it first came out
|
|
some time around 1990, I believe, is written essentially from zero,
|
|
and it says you can relicense under the GPL, which is what makes them
|
|
compatible, but we decided to start from scratch and express the same
|
|
permissions as a delta, starting from the GPL. That's the way the new
|
|
version of the LGPL is going to work. It's going to say "You can
|
|
use this under GNU GPL version 3 or later, and in addition we permit
|
|
these things". So it's making use of section 7 of GPL version 3
|
|
which describes how to add additional permissions or, in certain
|
|
cases, additional requirements. We can't get rid of it, even if we
|
|
wanted to, but we don't want to. There are good reasons why certain
|
|
libraries are released in that way.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q12">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q12</span>: I'm wondering if you can
|
|
talk briefly about the changes and what's happening with the GFDL and
|
|
the GSFDL?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I don't
|
|
remember them so well.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I'd have to refresh my memory. We decided to make something like the
|
|
GNU Free Documentation License which doesn't have invariant sections
|
|
or cover texts, and that's the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.
|
|
Anything that's under the GFDL and has no cover texts or invariant
|
|
sections, you will be able to relicense under the SFDL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Also, we utilised the concepts of "propagate" and
|
|
"convey" to make them more internationalised. I think that
|
|
that's basically what the changes are. I think there is also
|
|
a provision for distributing small excerpts without having a copy of the
|
|
licence accompany them, which is something people have asked for.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In general, we do not want to allow distributing a work with just a
|
|
link to the licence, and the reason is, we don't know whether such
|
|
links to licences are reliable over periods of decades, so our rule
|
|
is: you have to provide the licence itself with the work.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're trying to prevent the bad outcome which is that a person has a
|
|
copy of the work and doesn't know what licence he can use it under.
|
|
If you don't know what your freedoms are, it's almost as if you didn't
|
|
have them. That's not a good outcome. However, we're going to permit
|
|
this for those small excerpts because it causes too much of a
|
|
practical problem otherwise.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q13">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q13</span>: When using the GPL for a
|
|
font, what happens to documents that use the font?
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: As far as I
|
|
know, there is no problem using GPL version 2 or 3 for fonts. Now,
|
|
you might want to state explicitly that you don't regard documents
|
|
that have text in the font as being linked with the font, and let
|
|
those documents be licensed in any way people wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
You could put an exception, an additional permission on the font,
|
|
saying that you don't insist on anything about the licensing of
|
|
documents which use the font.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Q&A session ends; applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="further-information">Further information</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>For general information, links, and a schedule, see
|
|
our <a href="gplv3.html">GPLv3 project</a> page</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Many more transcripts can be found at
|
|
the <a href="gplv3.html#transcripts">transcripts section</a> of our
|
|
GPLv3 project page</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>You can support FSFE's work, such as our GPLv3 awareness work,
|
|
by joining <a href="https://my.fsfe.org/donate">the Fellowship of
|
|
FSFE</a>, and by encouraging others to do so</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>You can also support us by <a href="/help/donate">making a
|
|
donation</a>, and by encouraging others to to so</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|