1529 lines
57 KiB
HTML
1529 lines
57 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Richard Stallman from the third
|
|
international GPLv3 conference, Barcelona; 2006-06-22</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<div style="float:right;">
|
|
<a href="gplv3.html"><img SRC="GPLv3-logo-red.png"
|
|
ALT="GPLv3 logo" BORDER="0"
|
|
WIDTH="319" HEIGHT="130" /></a>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h1>Transcript of Richard Stallman at the 3nd international GPLv3
|
|
conference; 22nd June 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="http://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="/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.html">third
|
|
international GPLv3 conference</a>, organised by FSFE in Barcelona.
|
|
The conference page has materials from the other presentations.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Please support work such as this by
|
|
joining <a href="http://fellowship.fsfe.org/">the Fellowship of FSFE</a>,
|
|
and by encouraging others to do so. Transcription of this
|
|
presentation was undertaken
|
|
by <a href="/about/oriordan/oriordan.html">Ciaran O'Riordan</a>.
|
|
The video was made and processed by Sean Daly.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Richard Stallman launched
|
|
the <a href="/documents/gnuproject.html">GNU project</a> in 1983,
|
|
and with it the <a href="/documents/freesoftware.html">Free
|
|
Software</a> movement. Stallman is the president of FSF - a sister
|
|
organisation of FSFE.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Video and audio recordings are available:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Audio: <a href="fsfe-gplv3-richard-stallman.vorbis.ogg.torrent">http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/fsfe-gplv3-richard-stallman.vorbis.ogg.torrent</a></li>
|
|
<li>Video: <a href="fsfe-gplv3-richard-stallman.theora.ogg.torrent">http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/fsfe-gplv3-richard-stallman.theora.ogg.torrent</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>The speech was made in English.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Presentation sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#begin">The presentation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#free-software">What is a Free Software licence</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#copyleft">Copyleft</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#copyleft-history">History of copyleft</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#licence-incompat">How licence incompatibility happens</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#future-compat">"Or any later version"</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#liberty-or-death">Liberty or Death</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#why-update">Why update the GPL?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#decision-process">The decision process</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation">Tivoisation and Digital Restrictions Management</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#patents">Software patents</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#compatibility">Extended compatibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#affero-clause">Affero clauses</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#lgpl">The future of the LGPL</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#new-wordings">Rewording exceptions, propagation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#termination">Licence termination</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#near-future">What happens in the next 2 months</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#draft2-preview">A preview of the new changes coming in Draft 2</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#less-about-keys">Removing the bit about distributing keys</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#net-or-mail">What's better? The Internet or mail order?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Questions and Answers session sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q1-about-using-mail">Q1: Why require Internet distribution?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q2-compatibility">Q2: What might GPLv3 be compatible with?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q3-lgpl-when">Q3: When will LGPL v3 be out?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q4-will-lgpl-disappear">Q4: Will LGPL disappear?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q5-options-complexity">Q5: Is complexity a possible problem?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q6-when-official-gplv3">Q6: When will GPLv3 officially exist?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q6b-how-transition">Q6b: How will the transition happen?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q7-drm">Q7: DRM and GPLv3</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q8-proliferation">Q8: Is licence proliferation being tackled?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q9-gpl-and-law">Q9: Does the GPL trump national law?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q9b-choosing-v2-or-v3">Q9b: Can distributors choose v2 or v3?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q10-translations">Q10: Will there be translations</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q11-banning-bad-use">Q11: Should GPLv3 ban unethical acts?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="begin">The presentation</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:03]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Richard Stallman: When should I start?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Sean Daly: Whenever you're ready
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, I guess [pauses 3 seconds]... I'll start now.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p id="free-software">[Section: What is a Free Software licence]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The most important thing to know about any version of the GNU General
|
|
Public License, or "GNU GPL", is that it's a Free Software licence.
|
|
This is crucial to understanding it. The purpose of the GNU GPL is to
|
|
assure user's freedom, because the goal of the Free Software movement
|
|
is the liberation of cyberspace.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
"Free Software" means that the users have four essential freedoms.
|
|
Freedoms that every user of software should have.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program, as you wish, however you
|
|
wish, for any purpose.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the program's source code, and
|
|
change it so that it does what you wish.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour. This is the
|
|
freedom to distribute copies when you wish, including publishing
|
|
them. and</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Freedom 3 is the freedom to help your community. This is the
|
|
freedom to distribute modified versions when you wish, including
|
|
publishing them.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If you have all four of these freedoms, then the program is Free
|
|
Software, for you. If one of these freedoms is substantially missing,
|
|
then the program is proprietary software, XXX "privativo", because it
|
|
denies the users these essential freedoms. A "privativo" program is a
|
|
social mechanism for subjugating its users, which is what makes it
|
|
unethical and anti-social, and that's the reason why I launched a
|
|
movement to put an end to that practice of keeping people in
|
|
subjection.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[3:53]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="copyleft">[Section: Copyleft]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Free Software respects these four freedoms for users. It's easy to
|
|
write a simple Free Software licence that basically says "you can do
|
|
anything you want". The X Window System traditionally was distributed
|
|
under such a licence, but this is not the best way to liberate all the
|
|
users because one thing that some people do when they get software
|
|
under such a licence is they make a modified version or improved
|
|
version and they distribute it as software privativo, and when that
|
|
happens, their users do not have the four freedoms. They are
|
|
subjugated. So this is a practice that undermines the freedom of the
|
|
whole community. Therefore, having seen this, at the beginning of the
|
|
GNU project, I conceived a way of preventing this problem from
|
|
occurring.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This method we called copyleft or "izquierdo
|
|
copia" because
|
|
you can think of it as copyright flipped over. Whereas copyright is
|
|
typically used for software developers to subjugate the users, to keep
|
|
them divided and helpless, copyleft protects all the users and makes
|
|
sure they are free, and the way it does this is by forbidding the
|
|
middle men from taking away the freedom from the subsequent users.
|
|
Copyleft says whenever the code reaches you, the freedom must also
|
|
reach you, along with the code, and it does this by saying that nobody
|
|
can put himself in between you and the developer to strip off the
|
|
freedom and pass along to you a proprietary program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="copyleft-history">[Section: History of copyleft]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The GNU GPL is a descendant of the first copyleft licence. I wrote
|
|
the first copyleft licence in 1985 and it was called the GNU Emacs
|
|
General Public License, and I put it on GNU Emacs. It was a licence
|
|
that said "this is the licence for GNU Emacs", and here's how it
|
|
worked, it said "GNU Emacs is copyrighted," now, copyright law says
|
|
that if something is copyrighted, people are not allowed to copy and
|
|
modify it but then the licence said "you are authorised to copy this,
|
|
you're authorised to publish, you are authorised to modify this, you
|
|
are authorised to publish your modified versions, but there's a
|
|
condition" and the condition is you must respect the same freedoms for
|
|
everyone else. So the condition says "whatever version you
|
|
distribute, must be available as source code and must carry this same
|
|
licence". That is copyleft. When you say "you can change this any
|
|
way you want, but the modified version has to carry this same
|
|
licence"
|
|
that provision is copyleft. That's how we make sure that every user
|
|
gets the freedoms that are spelled out in this licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
A copyleft licence for software also must require that the users get
|
|
effective access to the source code. Giving users permission to copy
|
|
and modify binaries without access to the source code does not
|
|
effectively give users freedom #1 - the freedom to change the program
|
|
to do what they wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[8:50]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This first copyleft licence was called the GNU Emacs General Public
|
|
License because it was only for Emacs. It said in it "this is the
|
|
licence for GNU Emacs, GNU Emacs is available under this licence".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In 1989, I revised it so that it could operate on any program without
|
|
any change. So, the licence did not say which program it was about,
|
|
instead, you would simply drop this licence into any program and put
|
|
notices on the source files saying "this file is under the GNU General
|
|
Public License", and then it would be. Anyone could use the same
|
|
exact licence in any program. This was a very important advance, and
|
|
not just because it was more convenient. Before that, we had the GNU
|
|
Emacs General Public License, and the GCC General Public License, and
|
|
they were identical except for the name. It only takes about fifteen
|
|
seconds to edit the name, that's not the point. The point is that the
|
|
GNU Emacs General Public License and the GCC General Public License
|
|
were different and they were incompatible.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="licence-incompat">[Section: How licence incompatibility happens]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The GNU Emacs General Public License said all modified versions must
|
|
be under the GNU Emacs General Public License. The GCC General Public
|
|
Licence said all modified versions must be under the GCC General
|
|
Public License. What if you wanted to merge Emacs and GCC? There was
|
|
no legal way to do that, because this one says the combined work must
|
|
be under this licence, and this one says it has to be under this
|
|
licence, and they're the same licence. It's impossible for the
|
|
licence of the combination to be this one, and at the same time be
|
|
this one. So by designing a single licence that could be dropped in
|
|
identically to Emacs and GCC, we made these two programs
|
|
licence-compatible.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="future-compat">[Section: "Or any later version"]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another advance in the first version of the GNU GPL was a provision
|
|
for upgrades. We knew that we would need to change it some day, so we
|
|
put in a provision that said "if your program say it's covered by
|
|
version 1 or any later version of the GNU GPL, then, on some later
|
|
date when version 2 is released, your program will automatically,
|
|
immediately be usable under version 2". This was very important to
|
|
avoid incompatibilities. Whenever you change a copyleft licence, the
|
|
new version and the old one are incompatible because each one says
|
|
"modified programs must be released under this licence", so GPL
|
|
version 1 says "modified versions must be under GPL version
|
|
1",
|
|
and GPL version 2 says "modified versions must be under GPL version
|
|
2".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
They can't be both, so we would have had a big incompatibility problem
|
|
between the programs under GPL version 1 and the programs under GPL
|
|
version 2. To prevent that, we designed this way for people to let
|
|
their programs advance automatically to GPL version 2. It's a very
|
|
good thing that most people did that because in 1991 we designed
|
|
version 2 of the GNU GPL. All the GPL covered software, or just about
|
|
all, advanced to version 2. The changes in version 2 were fairly
|
|
small.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="liberty-or-death">[Section: Liberty or Death]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There was one particular important change, which was the addition of
|
|
section 7. The "Liberty or Death" clause, as I've generally thought
|
|
about it, which says that if someone has conditions imposed on him
|
|
that don't allow him to distribute the software in a way that respects
|
|
all the freedoms stated in the GPL, then he can't distribute at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[14:16]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If somebody sues you and offers you a settlement saying "you can
|
|
distribute the software, but only as object code", or "you can
|
|
distribute the software but you'll have to make people who get it
|
|
promise not to modify it" at that point, the only thing you can do is
|
|
stop distributing it. It is better for our software to be wiped out
|
|
than for it to become "privativo" because the whole purpose of the
|
|
Free Software movement is to liberate the users in cyberspace. If we
|
|
fail to achieve that, then we've achieved nothing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, some people who were being a bit too literal minded might say
|
|
"isn't it better to give people software with some freedoms than no
|
|
software at all?" The problem is, if you think you have that option,
|
|
you won't fight as hard as you can. This clause in the GPL
|
|
essentially means we've burnt our boats. We're going to win or we're
|
|
going to fail completely, but we won't lose because we told ourselves
|
|
we could content ourselves with something less than freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, in the past few months, Eben Moglen pointed out to me that
|
|
even if such an event happens, it doesn't really kill off the program.
|
|
It might interfere with its use in certain places by certain parties,
|
|
but the program will remain in existence and free for a lot of other
|
|
people, so it turns out that the name "Liberty or Death" is a bit
|
|
exagerated and we're going to change the name of that paragraph. But
|
|
it's still, in its spirit, it's the right way to think about the
|
|
issue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
[17:14]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="why-update">[Section: Why update the GPL?]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It was a few years ago that we became aware of certain issues calling
|
|
for more work on the GPL. It was about four years ago that I began
|
|
working with Eben Moglen on designing a new version of the GPL, and we
|
|
did a lot of work, and then we laid it aside, but last year we decided
|
|
that things were becoming urgent, so we decided we're going to get it
|
|
done now and we made plans to spend several months working on it
|
|
together.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="decision-process">[Section: The decision process]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We released the first discussion draft in January after several months
|
|
of working together on the text, and, we also designed a careful plan
|
|
for how to request and then study and act on the feedback from various
|
|
parts of our community. Various kinds of users and contributors. We
|
|
did not decide to let the community decide what goes into GPL version
|
|
3. There is a fundamental reason for this. Because Free Software is
|
|
very often attractive for purely practical reasons, we have collected
|
|
tens of millions of users who choose Free Software purely for
|
|
practical benefits and do not appreciate the freedom that we have
|
|
given them. These are the kind of people that assume that you should
|
|
choose between Free Software and proprietary software based on
|
|
practical convenience, which is another way of saying that they value
|
|
freedom at zero. How sad. How can freedom ever be safe, when people
|
|
don't appreciate it. People have had to fight for freedom, over and
|
|
over.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And when people do not value their freedom, they are very likely to
|
|
lose it. But that's the fact. Most of our community does not
|
|
appreciate freedom. Most of the World, lets go of vital freedoms
|
|
whenever some crooked politician tells them "I'm going to protect you
|
|
from terrorists, give up your freedom, let me protect you."
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, if we wanted to do a good job of protecting freedom with version 3
|
|
of the GNU GPL, we could not let the majority of our users decide what
|
|
goes into that licence, but we need to listen to what they have to say
|
|
because there are lots of potential problems and we're not smart
|
|
enough to see them all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
[20:52]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We need to get a lot of feedback, so we've worked out a way to try to
|
|
do them both.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="tivoisation">[Section: Tivoisation and Digital Restrictions Management]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are several primary areas where version 3 is
|
|
different from version 2. One is in regard to tivoisation. Now,
|
|
you've probably never heard the term "tivoisation", because I made it
|
|
up, but it's an extremely important threat to our freedom. It's
|
|
named after a product called the "TiVo", which is capable of recording
|
|
many television channels at once and then the user can watch any of
|
|
the shows later on.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, it's also designed to restrict the user in certain ways.
|
|
There's no way to copy a recording out of the TiVo, and I think it
|
|
erases them after a certain amount of time, and it also reports
|
|
everything the user watches. So it's spying on the user all the time.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[22:30]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The TiVo, as it happens, contains a small GNU+Linux operating system.
|
|
It contains, therefore, several Free Software packages under the GNU
|
|
GPL and the GNU GPL requires them to make the source code available to
|
|
the users, and I believe they do. The users can then modify the
|
|
source code, compile it, and install it in the TiVo. At which point,
|
|
it won't run, because the TiVo contains a special mechanism that
|
|
notices if the programs have changed and refuses to run at all. It
|
|
just shuts down. That is tivoisation: designing machines so that if
|
|
the user installs modified versions they can't really function.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[23:43]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Tivoisation turns freedom number 1 into a sham. Freedom 1 is the
|
|
freedom to study the source code and change it so that the program
|
|
does what you want. With tivoisation, this freedom becomes purely
|
|
theoretical. Yes, you can change the program so that it could be
|
|
run in some other machine, and that might be useful for someone, but
|
|
you can't change it and run it on the TiVo, and this is a deliberate
|
|
restriction that they impose on the public.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The usual motive for tivoisation is because they are doing something
|
|
else nasty, and that something else is called DRM - Digital
|
|
Restrictions Management [repeats in Spanish "Gestion Digital
|
|
Restrictiones"?], in other words, the functionality of refusing to
|
|
function. Where the machine says: "I don't wanna let you see this
|
|
file" - "I don't wanna let you copy part of this file"
|
|
- "I don't
|
|
wanna print this file for you, 'cause I don't like you". That is
|
|
DRM.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom number 1 is the freedom to change the program to do what you
|
|
want. If you want to change the program so that you can't view
|
|
certain files anymore, if you want to change the program so that you
|
|
can't copy part of certain files, or you can't print certain files,
|
|
you should be free to do that. GPL version 3 respects your freedom to
|
|
do that. You can then distribute that modified version. GPL version
|
|
3 respects and defends your freedom to do that, but it will not let
|
|
you take those same freedoms away from people who get that modified
|
|
version.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[26:03]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version 3 is designed to prohibit tivoisation, and the way we do
|
|
this is by saying that whoever distributes the program, must provide
|
|
whatever keys are necessary to install modified versions of the
|
|
program such that they can really do the job.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom 0 says you have the right to run the program as you wish for
|
|
any purpose. This means you have a right to take your copy and use it
|
|
on your computer for whatever purpose. This does not mean that you have a
|
|
right to impose your purpose on other users. If your purpose is to
|
|
restrict other people, and you want to do it by giving them a GPL
|
|
covered program then you're out of luck because they, at that point,
|
|
are the ones entitled to freedom using their copies. They're entitled
|
|
to the freedom to change the program and run it for any purpose of
|
|
their's and you have no right to control what they do. That's what we
|
|
say to some people who demand the right to use our software to impose
|
|
DRM on the public.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[27:50]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Yes they have the right to implement DRM and distribute the software,
|
|
but they don't have the right to impose it on the general public in a
|
|
way that they cannot escape from. The GPL version 3 draft has other
|
|
measures in it to try and stop DRM as well, but again, not by
|
|
prohibiting people from implementing those malicious features but
|
|
rather by helping to safeguard users from evil laws that most
|
|
countries in Europe have already adopted, which forbid users to do
|
|
that. There's a law in spain, I'm almost certain.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Spain has implemented the EUCD right? Pablo? Tomorrow? oh. Is there
|
|
a battle going on here. In France there is a big battle over the
|
|
implementation of the [EUCD]. I'm afraid, if there's no battle in
|
|
Spain, they're surely going to do something much worse than the
|
|
directive requires. The directive requires making it illegal to
|
|
distribute, at least commercially, software that is capable of freeing
|
|
users from the restrictions imposed by DRM.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version 3 contains language specifically designed to say that this
|
|
power is waived, giving users permission to make the other software
|
|
that interoperates.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[30:00]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="patents">[Section: Software patents]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, another area that GPL version 3 is designed to work on is that of
|
|
patents. The main motive for what we used to call the "Liberty or
|
|
Death" clause, is the danger of patents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
"Software patents" mean, simply patents that restrict what people can
|
|
put in software. In general, a patent describes one or more ideas in
|
|
fairly general terms. Ideas for how to build something, or how it can
|
|
operate, and then says everyone is forbidden to use those ideas until
|
|
the patent expires. When these ideas can be ideas you can implement
|
|
in software, running on general purpose computing facilities, then
|
|
it's a software patent and software patents are extremely dangerous
|
|
because they mean you can write a program yourself and then get sued
|
|
by somebody you never even heard of. Not just once but maybe twenty
|
|
times or a hundred times by twenty or a hundred different people
|
|
you've never heard of, because a large program combines lots of
|
|
different ideas, thousands if not even more.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If 10% of the ideas are patented, that means the large program will
|
|
infringe hundreds of patents, if not more. One large program has been
|
|
carefully studied by a lawyer in the US, who looked for all the
|
|
software patents that might prohibit some part of it. That program is
|
|
Linux, the kernel of the GNU+Linux operating system. He found 283
|
|
different patents applying to various techniques and features
|
|
implemented somewhere in Linux. So this shows what the problem is
|
|
like. Other Free Software licences written in the past decade often
|
|
contain an explicit statement granting patent licences from developers
|
|
and distributors to the users. We decided it was most reliable to do
|
|
that too.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[32:59]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Previously, we had figured that anyone that distributed the program is
|
|
implicitly saying he wasn't going to then sue you for doing what he
|
|
had told you you could do, but we concluded it's safer to make this
|
|
explicit, so GPL version 3 draft has an explicit patent licence.
|
|
We're doing some rewriting of how it works, which you'll see when the
|
|
next draft is published, but it's going to contain an explicit
|
|
statement so that the developers and distributors can't sue people who
|
|
then use the program that they distributed.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[33:51]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="compatibility">[Section: Extended compatibility]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another main area of improvement in version 3 is extended
|
|
compatibility with certain other licences. First of all, we've
|
|
decided to make explicit in the licence what it means for other
|
|
licences to be compatible. That, we hope, will clarify a lot of
|
|
uncertainties people have had, which we have so far addressed with the
|
|
Frequently Answered Questions list.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which are
|
|
compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released under
|
|
one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively, permission to
|
|
relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can happen. Some
|
|
licences explicitly say "you can also use this program under the GNU
|
|
GPL". In other cases, it's because the licence is so permissive that
|
|
to relicence it under the GNU GPL is permitted.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[35:30]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In any case, we've decided to explicitly describe this and then extend
|
|
it a certain amount. We've made a list of certain kinds of additional
|
|
requirements that may be added, some of which are trivial and we think
|
|
they're ok anyway but we might as well state it, but some are
|
|
non-trivial, and this is a real substantive change. For instance,
|
|
we've stated that it's ok to have a requirement saying that certain
|
|
trademarks must not be used except as trademark law would normally
|
|
permit.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a condition for use the code under copyright law, but it
|
|
refers to trademark law. The reason is that there's some important
|
|
Free Software licences that have a requirement like that, so this way
|
|
we're making them compatible with the new version of the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another kind of requirement that we see is patent retaliation. There
|
|
are some Free Software licences that say anyone who sues for patent
|
|
infringement under certain conditions loses the right to use this
|
|
software. Now, these requirements vary because they vary according to
|
|
the precise conditions that they state. So there are different kinds
|
|
of patent retaliation clauses.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We have worked out which kinds of patent retaliation clauses seem
|
|
legitimate to us, and we have explicitly allowed for those kinds of
|
|
clauses. And that will make some additional licences compatible with
|
|
the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[37:45]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="affero-clause">[Section: Affero clauses]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And there's another kind of clause that we're making compatible and
|
|
that's what we call the "Affero clause" because it was first used in the
|
|
Affero GPL. The Affero GPL is a modified version of the GNU GPL which
|
|
has an additional requirement designed to make sure that if somebody
|
|
runs a modified version on a publicly accessible server, that the
|
|
users of the server can also get the modified source code. In effect
|
|
it's a requirement on public use of the program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We thought about putting some kind of clause like that into GPL
|
|
version 3 but we decided that would be too drastic to put it on all
|
|
GPL covered programs, so I thought, lets make it a conditional
|
|
requirement that has to be activated by something you do in the
|
|
program - you put something in the program to make that requirement
|
|
apply to it, and then I realised, once we designed this extended
|
|
compatibility provision, that the easiest way to implement that was
|
|
just to use the extended compatibility provision. So this way, people
|
|
will be able to put that kind of extended compatibility requirement on
|
|
their programs, on their code. That way, it will be there for their
|
|
code and programs that contain their code, but other than that, for
|
|
other GPL covered programs, it won't apply.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This way we don't need to design any special kind of control
|
|
mechanism. If you want that clause on your code, you put it on your
|
|
code.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[39:56]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="lgpl">[Section: The future of the LGPL]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One of the nice things this has enabled us to do is: we have been
|
|
able to rewrite the Lesser GPL - the GNU LGPL - so that it uses this
|
|
clause. The GNU Lesser GPL will not have to restate most of the
|
|
things in the GPL, it will say it's the GNU GPL plus these added
|
|
permissions. One of the other benefits we get from this is that we
|
|
make it clear that any time someone adds extra permissions on top of
|
|
the GNU GPL, that when you modify the program you can take off those
|
|
added permissions. You can release your version under the strict GPL
|
|
and nothing more.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We've also made it clear that it's impossible, it's
|
|
self-contradictory, to try to add any requirements that are not in our
|
|
list of what's allowed. From time to time people do that. They say
|
|
"This program is available under the GNU GPL except you can't use it
|
|
commercially." This is a self contradiction. The result is
|
|
nonsense. You can't tell, even, what that really means because it's
|
|
not clear what the licence would be for modified versions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[41:54]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
With GPL version 3, it's going to be clear that any added restrictions
|
|
that the GPL doesn't allow for can be removed.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Richard is asked to stop, the tape is changed, then Richard
|
|
continues]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Thank you. Most people who are recording a speech aren't organised
|
|
enough to warn me to pause, and as a result there are gaps in the
|
|
recording which could easily be avoided.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[42:28]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="new-wordings">[Section: Rewording exceptions, propagation]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, those are the main areas - the big areas of change - but there are
|
|
some smaller ones. We've done some rewriting of what we call the
|
|
"system library exception", to try to make it clearly cover the
|
|
possibility of distributing a version of our software with a non-free
|
|
operating system, but at the same time to limit it so that this can't
|
|
be abused. The kind of abuse we're concerned about would be to find a
|
|
way to make extensions in the functionality in the program itself
|
|
which are part of the non-free operating system because the goal of
|
|
copyleft is that all the modifications and extensions to the program
|
|
must themselves be free.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We've done a lot of rewriting designed specifically for
|
|
internationalisation of the licence. Instead of talking about
|
|
"copying" and "distribution", we use the term
|
|
"propagation".
|
|
"Propagation" means, basically, copying and everything else that might
|
|
have the same results as copying.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[44:27]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Then we give conditions in terms of propagation, rather than copying,
|
|
and we also have the concept of propagation that can result in others
|
|
having copies, and we make conditions for that instead of
|
|
"distribution".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This, to a substantial extend, insulates the GPL from differences
|
|
between copyright laws in different countries, so that we'll get the
|
|
same result, as far as is legally possible, in all countries.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another area where we made some change is in the issue of distributing
|
|
binaries now and providing source code later, on request. We've
|
|
decided that if somebody is distributing the binaries as part of a GPL
|
|
covered program, he must continue providing the source code on request
|
|
for as long as he continues to provide any other kind of customer
|
|
support for that product because, obviously, it won't be very
|
|
difficult to include this particular kind of customer support.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[46:15]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="termination">[Section: Licence termination]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And we made a change in the way termination of the licence works. In
|
|
GPL version 2, if someone violates the licence, it terminates
|
|
automatically. At that point, if he wants to have permission once
|
|
again, to distribute or modify the program, he needs to ask for it - or
|
|
copy the program or anything that he needs the licence to do - he must
|
|
ask to get permission back again.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For version 3, we've made a change. The change is that the developer
|
|
has to tell the user that he has done something wrong, and he has to
|
|
do this within 60 days of some violation. If the user continues to
|
|
violate the licence, the developer can always send this notice, but if
|
|
the user stops violating the licence, and then 60 more days go by, at
|
|
that point it's no longer possible for the developer to notify him
|
|
anymore.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, in other words, if the user recognises the violation and stops,
|
|
there's a sort of statue of limitations. Once the developer has put
|
|
the user on notice, at that point the developer can terminate the
|
|
licence at any time. What that means is that the user has to start
|
|
negotiating with the developer and saying "please don't terminate my
|
|
licence, what do you want from me?" What this means is that if
|
|
someone continues to violate the licence, this change really makes no
|
|
difference. You'll have to say "I see you're violating the
|
|
licence",
|
|
and then you can terminate it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But, if somebody violates the licence by mistake and he sees it and he
|
|
fixes it, then 60 days later, if he hasn't been notified, he doesn't
|
|
have to worry.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[49:14]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If someone has been violating the licence with an entire GNU/Linux
|
|
distribution, which, right now, if you did that, there are thousands
|
|
of GPL covered programs in a GNU/Linux distribution, which means your
|
|
licence for all of them has been terminated automatically and how in
|
|
the World are you going to contact all those developers to beg them to
|
|
give you permission again?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Whereas, with this change, what will happen is, some of them will say
|
|
"We see you're violating the licence, this is the notice". At that
|
|
point you'll say "Oops", you'll fix it, and during the 60 days
|
|
that follow, some additional developers may decide to put you on
|
|
notice. But since they see you did it by accident, and that you've
|
|
fixed it, they'll probably say "ok, I won't terminate your
|
|
licence"
|
|
and then you're ok. The point is that with the thousands of other
|
|
developers who didn't do anything, you are not in trouble. With the
|
|
ones who have put you on notice, at least you know where to reach
|
|
them, so that they can say eventually "ok, we see that you've fixed
|
|
it, we won't terminate your licence, you're ok."
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This provision was designed to help people who accidentally violate
|
|
the requirements and fix it, without interfering with the ability to
|
|
enforce the licence legally against willful violators.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[51:04]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="near-future">[Section: What happens in the next 2 months]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In another month or so, we're going to release the next discussion
|
|
draft and at that point we will once again ask for public comment on
|
|
the changes. We will be doing this through the site <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org">gplv3.fsf.org</a>,
|
|
the same site as before. That site contains a mechanism that people
|
|
can use to pick a part of the text of the licence and associate their
|
|
comment with it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
At that point, some discussion committees will start looking at these
|
|
comments and studying the issues that they raise, and passing them on
|
|
to me to work on together with Eben Moglen and the other lawyers that
|
|
work with him and thus we'll once again see what further change is
|
|
needed. When we publish the new discussion draft, we will also
|
|
publish a new Rationale Document giving the explanation of the changes
|
|
that we will have made since the first draft. We will also publish - I
|
|
think it will be ready at the same time but I'm not sure - responses
|
|
to all the issues raised by the comments we received on the first
|
|
draft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="draft2-preview">[Section: A preview of the new changes coming in Draft 2]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I'll give you a bit of a preview of the changes that will probably be
|
|
in the next discussion draft, a very general preview.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[53:03]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We decided to rename the "Liberty or Death" for the program clause to
|
|
"No Surrendering Others' Freedom", which is a precise description of
|
|
what it does. You're not allowed to surrender freedom on behalf of
|
|
people who are going to get the program from you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[a mobile phone rings]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If you are carrying a portable surveillance and tracking device,
|
|
please turn it off. They have already tracked you here. They already
|
|
know that you are listening to me, so there is no need for you to keep
|
|
telling them that you are still here. And if they want to listen to
|
|
what I am saying, we're going to publish the video recording anyway.
|
|
They don't need to turn on your portable surveillance device to do it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[54:13]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="less-about-keys">[Section: Removing the bit about distributing keys]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, we decided to get rid of a requirement that some people have
|
|
confused, which says that you must distribute all the keys that are
|
|
necessary for another program to read this program's output, because
|
|
we figured that as long as we succeed in preventing tivoisation, we
|
|
can always modify the program so that it writes its output in
|
|
unencrypted form some place else, and then you can write another
|
|
program to read it without needing any keys at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Some people have got the idea - we don't think it's true - that this
|
|
part of GPL version 3 prohibits things such as the GNU Privacy Guard,
|
|
who's purpose is encryption for privacy, and that's not the goal at
|
|
all. The goal again was fighting against imposing DRM in such a way
|
|
that you can't escape from it. That's another change that some people
|
|
will like.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="net-or-mail">[Section: What's better? The Internet or mail order?]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're going to ask people to consider the idea of allowing someone to
|
|
distribute binaries in a physical product and keep the corresponding
|
|
source code available on a network server instead of offering mail
|
|
order.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Version 2 of the GPL says, one option is to distribute only binaries,
|
|
together with a written offer to send the sources later. The first
|
|
draft of version 3 has a similar provision. What we're considering
|
|
now is an option that says you can distribute just the binary, but you
|
|
must tell people "here's where they can get the source code on the
|
|
Net", and that must be kept available for three years plus whatever.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The argument for this is that nowadays, for everyone in the World,
|
|
this is more convenient than mail order. In the past it wasn't. In
|
|
the past it was very often that downloading the data would have been
|
|
unbearable for most people. Nowadays, I'm told that there are
|
|
services which will download something off the Net and mail it to you
|
|
on a CD and it doesn't cost very much, so, this is something we will
|
|
be asking people to give feedback on.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[57:51]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We found it necessary to redesign the mechanism of the explicit patent
|
|
licence, so the next draft will work differently but it will do the
|
|
same job. And we introduced the concept of "conveying", to mean the
|
|
for propagating copies to others. Where GPL 2 talks about
|
|
"distribution", and draft 1 talks about "propagating in such a way
|
|
that others may get copies", we will be talking about
|
|
"conveying"
|
|
copies. It should make the thing much easier to read.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're still putting the finishing touches on the second draft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And, I guess that's it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now I will answer questions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's one other thing I should say. It's a very general thing.
|
|
Governments that impose harsh restrictions on their citizens, backed
|
|
up by cruel punishments, on behalf of corporations, are showing that
|
|
they are not really on the citizens' side. They're not working for
|
|
us, they don't represent us except with lip service. They represent
|
|
the corporations and their goal is to rule us. These governments are
|
|
democratic only in name. And since governments get their legitimacy
|
|
from ruling on behalf of the people and protecting the people's
|
|
rights, these governments lose their legitimacy.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I'm very sad to say that almost all governments around the World have
|
|
done this. Government of the people, by the flunkies, for the
|
|
corporations. And it makes me very sad.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So now I'll answer questions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:01:16]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1-about-using-mail">
|
|
Q1: In GPL version 2, for non-source distribution, there are three
|
|
options, but two real options. One of them is to distribute the
|
|
source code with the binaries, the other is to distribute an offer for
|
|
the source code with the binaries. Under version 2, both of these
|
|
options are permitted for Internet distribution as well.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: That's never been our understanding, and that's why we made it
|
|
clearer. The option of offering to provide source code later is not
|
|
supposed to be for Internet distribution, it's for physical
|
|
distribution.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q1b: Can you explain to me what the reasoning is there?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: If you're distributing on the Internet, there's another option in
|
|
GPL version 2, which is, you put the binary and the source up on the
|
|
Net, side by side, and you let people copy them, one or both, as they
|
|
wish. That's the option for Internet distribution.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q1c: might that not use a lot of bandwidth? Might someone prefer to
|
|
send a CD?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: It uses as much bandwidth as the user wants. The point is, you
|
|
put both on the server and the user can download the binaries and the
|
|
user can download the source, one or the other or both. So the user
|
|
decides, the user downloads as much as he wants. It says explicitly,
|
|
you don't have to make sure that the users get the source if they get
|
|
the binaries, you just have to put them both up for download.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q1d: I was actually thinking more, and this is a complaint I've heard,
|
|
but, not that we necessarily have to listen to it, but upload
|
|
bandwidth, at least in the United States, most broadband services are
|
|
designed so that you are a consumer. Their downsteam bandwidth is
|
|
much greater than their upstream bandwidth.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Well, you know, I pity the poor distributor who has a server and
|
|
can't get the source code to it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But he can find some way. He can go to some place where they have
|
|
more bandwidth. He can buy more bandwidth. He can mail a CD to his
|
|
server site. There's something he can do. He can wait a bit longer
|
|
before he releases it. Aren't the binaries generally much bigger than
|
|
the source code anyway?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q1e: I don't think so, any more actually. But they're about the same,
|
|
they're in the same order of magnitude.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Well then obviously this is no disaster, and it's a price society
|
|
should pay to make sure users get the source code frequently.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q1f: Thank you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:04:28]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q2-compatibility">
|
|
Q2: When you add the clauses to make it more compatible, were you
|
|
thinking about some particular licences?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Yes and no. The main decision was based on what is ethically
|
|
acceptable to add to the GPL, but, in looking at details, we tried to
|
|
make certain licences compatible. Most importantly the Apache
|
|
licence. It will be very useful to have compatibility between the GNU
|
|
GPL version 3 and the Apache Public License.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But also, we're thinking about licences that will be written in the
|
|
future. We hope to influence licence developers in the future to make
|
|
their licences in a way that's compatible with the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q3-lgpl-when">
|
|
Q3: Will the new version of the LGPL become public at the same time as
|
|
the second discussion draft of the GPL?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Yes. We'll publish our draft of the revised LGPL at the same
|
|
time as the next draft of the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q4-will-lgpl-disappear">
|
|
Q4: Did you say LGPL will disappear?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Well, it won't disappear, but instead of being a licence that
|
|
starts from scratch and is self-contained, it will be much shorter and
|
|
it will say "This consists of the GNU GPL plus the following added
|
|
permission".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q4a: So you have no problem to replace LGPL licenced GNU software to
|
|
GPL licenced software with an exception, right?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Yes, the LGPL will say "I am the GNU GPL plus these added
|
|
permissions", so it will say "this is version, whatever, of
|
|
the LGPL",
|
|
but instead of being self-contained, it will say "I consist of the GNU
|
|
GPL plus some added permissions" and the added permissions will
|
|
essentially be unchanged from the LGPL. I think I recall that there
|
|
is literally no difference.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5-options-complexity">
|
|
Q5: I think one of the things that people like about GPL version 2 is
|
|
that it's one licence, so whenever you talk about the GPL, you know
|
|
what you're talking about, but with version 3 you have these options,
|
|
you can add something, you have the ability to add something that only
|
|
applies to that particular thing you're writing there. Are you
|
|
afraid that this makes is more likely to be used, or does it have any
|
|
effect?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: How many people use GPL 3 depends on lots of things, but I think
|
|
this is a price worth paying for the added compatibility which will be
|
|
tremendously beneficial for this society. Also, we have a requirement
|
|
that says when there are added permissions or requirements on parts of
|
|
the program, there must be a central list which mentions all of them.
|
|
Which means, it won't be hard to find all the terms. Also, because
|
|
any added requirements have to fit into certain narrow categories, for
|
|
most purposes they don't make any difference.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q6-when-official-gplv3">
|
|
Q6: When will the licence, version 3, be ready to be used?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: I don't know. Basically, our plan is to have another draft in
|
|
October, and that may be the final draft. That may be the actual
|
|
licence. Or that may be another discussion draft. It depends what
|
|
problems people find in the coming draft. We don't know. One must be
|
|
flexible about this.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q6b-how-transition">
|
|
Q6b: Second question, when people start to update their licences to
|
|
the new versions, how will that happen in practice?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: In practice, any program that says it can be distributed under
|
|
GPL version two "or later" will automatically be available under GPL
|
|
version 3, but, when people make subsequent releases, they can change
|
|
that to say "GPL version 3 or later", that's what we will do in
|
|
subsequent releases of GNU software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q6c: Basically, in a system with many components, people don't have to
|
|
modify their code?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: It depends. There are some programs which say GPL version 2
|
|
"only", and those things will still be under GPL version 2 only,
|
|
unless the developers get together and change it, but those that say
|
|
"GPL version 2 or later" will automatically be usable under GPL
|
|
version 3 when it is official.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q6d: Ok, so it depends on that one sentence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Right. But remember, a distribution that contains many programs
|
|
is a collection. Mostly those programs are independent of each
|
|
other, and each one does what it does. The fact that they're together
|
|
in one distribution doesn't change anything.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q6e: I am just afraid that those independent components of open source
|
|
projects they operate their licences individually [RMS interrupts]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Right, but we don't talk about "open source" here. We do not
|
|
work on open source, we did not design GNU GPL to be open source,
|
|
we're not designing GPL version 3 to be open source, because "open
|
|
source" is the name of a different philosophy - one that doesn't place
|
|
the values of freedom and freedom to cooperate at the forefront. For
|
|
us those are the priorities. What we do, you won't be able to
|
|
understand it if you think in terms of open source, and if you
|
|
describe what we do as open source, the people you're talking to won't
|
|
understand it either.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q7-drm">
|
|
Q7: With the delicate issue of Digital Restrictions Management, you
|
|
are saying that DRM is for proprietary software but not for Free
|
|
Software?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Not exactly, what I'm saying is that Digital Restrictions
|
|
Management represents an attempt by certain few to impose their
|
|
control over everyone else, and that this is wrong, and that because
|
|
their goal is to control other people, the next thing they do, almost
|
|
always, is they try to stop users from changing the software. In
|
|
other words, they try to take away, for practical purposes, freedom
|
|
number 1. We have decided to defend freedom number 1 - that is, the
|
|
freedom to change the software so that it does what you want.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We do not forbid the implementation of DRM. That is, GPL version 3
|
|
will no forbid people to modify the software so that it fails to do
|
|
certain things. What we insist on is that whoever does this and
|
|
distributes the crippled program respect the freedom of other people
|
|
to add what is missing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q7b: So, government laws are not GPL laws?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: I heard the words but I don't understand. I have no idea what it
|
|
would mean to be GPL laws. I'm sorry.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[the question is reworded and asked later, see <a href="#q9-gpl-and-law">Q9</a>]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q8-proliferation">
|
|
Q8: Proliferation of licences sometimes makes it difficult. What do
|
|
you have in mind to help to reduce this current proliferation of
|
|
licences.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's nothing I can do about it. Mostly, new licences are developed
|
|
by companies that are not particularly interested in respecting users'
|
|
freedom. I have less influence with them than with any other part of
|
|
our community. I hope that they will release their software under GPL
|
|
version 3, but you'll have to convince them, not me.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:18:18]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q9-gpl-and-law">
|
|
Q9: I have two questions. The first one is what I have understood of
|
|
[Q7b]. I think what was being asked was that, in your explanation of
|
|
DRM and tivoisation, it sounded like GPL trumps national laws.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: No, in general it can't. The only time we can do that is in
|
|
situations where the developer or distributor of a certain program
|
|
legally has certain powers, and if so, that developer or distributor
|
|
can waive those powers too, and if he can waive those powers, GPL
|
|
version three will say "by distributing this program, you waive the
|
|
power over this program." That's the only case in which the GPL can
|
|
override a national law, it's when the national law itself gives the
|
|
distributors of a program the option to do so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q9b-choosing-v2-or-v3">
|
|
Q9b: And my question is, when programs have been licensed under the
|
|
terms of GPL "version 2 or later" pass automatically to version 3,
|
|
what happens to the new restrictions added, I guess they're optional,
|
|
in the new licence?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Ah, here it is. First of all, the program that says "version 2
|
|
or later" doesn't have them. Now, if you want to change it, to merge
|
|
in something, say, under the Apache licence, you can do that if you're
|
|
using it under version 3 of the GPL, but you can't do that under
|
|
version 2. When you do that, you have to change it to say version 3
|
|
or later. However, as long as you don't merge in anything under the
|
|
Apache licence, you could if you wish continue having it say "version
|
|
2 or later".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q9c: But anyone can add any restrictions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Not any restrictions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q9d: ...that are in the menu.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Yes, right, but since it's only GPL version 3 which permits that,
|
|
when you do that, you'd better take away the thing that says "GPL
|
|
version 2".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Can someone note down that we should have a FAQ answer about that?
|
|
Novalis? That would be a useful thing to clarify for people.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q10-translations">
|
|
Q10: As for translations, will there be versions in Spanish, French?
|
|
Official versions of v3?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: We're not sure. It's very dangerous to make an official
|
|
translation of the GPL. What if we made a horrible mistake?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If it's a Spanish translation, I can read it. That doesn't mean that
|
|
I will understand its legal consequences. Y'now, producing a
|
|
translation in Castellano would be as much work as producing
|
|
the original English version. Well, maybe it will only be a quarter
|
|
as much work. That's a lot of work.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And then, although I've got some idea what these words mean in regard
|
|
to US copyright law, from many years of discussing these issues with
|
|
copyright lawyers, but that doesn't mean that I have the faintest
|
|
idea... I probably don't even know the vocabulary of law in Castellano.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Those are words I don't know. And now imagine what happens when
|
|
someone wants a Polish translation. This is a very hard problem.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q10b: Could the FSFE work on it?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Well, the thing is, maybe yes and maybe no. How would the FSF
|
|
Europe work on it? They would get lawyers to do it, but, who are
|
|
those lawyers, and to what extent do we know we can trust them. It's
|
|
really hard, because a mistake could be a Worldwide disaster.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, I've got the idea, maybe we could release a translation approved
|
|
only for one country. We could release a translation in
|
|
Castellano, approved only for Spain, and then separately we could
|
|
release one only for Mexico, and it might be the same.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But, even if it's the same, the point is, it's got to be checked for
|
|
Mexico. The crucial thing is, we don't want it to be valid in the US,
|
|
or China, India, Brazil, and so on. Because, if we release fifty
|
|
translations and each one is valid everywhere, that's fifty chances
|
|
for a horrible mistake to happen. Even if we were just as reliable
|
|
with each translation as we are with the original, I don't want to
|
|
have fifty times the chance to make a mistake. So this is one way to
|
|
limit it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, another question is: would it be ok to release a time-limited
|
|
translation? I'm not sure about this. The master GPL cannot be
|
|
time-limited. If we give you certain freedoms, it must be forever.
|
|
However, maybe it's ok if the translation is time-limited and may be
|
|
replaced with another translation. This way, maybe we can correct
|
|
errors. Errors are much less dangerous if we can correct them. But
|
|
it's not clear that it's acceptable, even for a translation, to be
|
|
time limited, to not be forever.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's a very hard job.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Other questions?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q11-banning-bad-use">
|
|
Q11: Can I make my question in Spanish?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
RMS: Si [Richard and the audience member discuss the question in
|
|
Spanish, then Richard answers in English]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:28:33]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
A free program must be available for all kinds of use. That's
|
|
fundamental. For authors to try to restrict what users do, in their
|
|
own lives, in their own activities, is completely unacceptable. Any
|
|
program, unless it serves only trivial purposes, like a game, can be
|
|
used for evil purposes, just as a pen, or typewriter, or a telephone,
|
|
can be used for evil purposes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I don't think that we should allow pens or telephones or typewriters
|
|
to come with requirements for what you can use them for, nor general
|
|
purpose programs. That is its own form of tyranny. A program with
|
|
such restrictions would not be Free Software. We will not allow any
|
|
such restrictions to be added to any version of GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The most common restriction they propose, is restriction against
|
|
military use. I would be extremely unhappy if my friend [sounds like
|
|
"Zargento Mayor Totos Bravo"] in Venezuela could no longer install new
|
|
versions of our software on the army's servers. The army of Venezuela
|
|
may be necessary for resistance against an invasion some day from: you
|
|
can guess where.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Q&A ends, applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Further information</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>For general information, links, and a schedule, see
|
|
our <a href="gplv3.html">GPLv3 project</a> page</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>See
|
|
the <a
|
|
href="/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.html">conference
|
|
webpage</a> for recordings, transcripts, and summaries of the other
|
|
presentations</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>You can support FSFE's work, such as our GPLv3 awareness work,
|
|
by joining <a href="http://fellowship.fsfe.org/">the Fellowship of
|
|
FSFE</a>, and also by encouraging others to do so</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|