910 lines
38 KiB
HTML
910 lines
38 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Ciaran O'Riordan from the fifth
|
|
international GPLv3 conference, Tokyo, Japan; 2006-11-22</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 id="top">Transcript of Ciarán O'Riordan at the 5th international
|
|
GPLv3 conference; 22nd 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="http://fsfe.org/transcripts#licences">list of
|
|
transcripts on GPLv3 and free software licences</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The following is a transcript of Ciarán O'Riordan'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-rms-transcript">transcript Richard Stallman'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 <a href="/about/oriordan/oriordan.html">Ciarán O'Riordan</a>.
|
|
Please support work such as this by <a href="/help/donate">donating
|
|
to FSFE</a>, joining <a href="http://fellowship.fsfe.org/">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_1122_1000_drm.ogg">The
|
|
recording of Ciaran O'Riordan's talk</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="menu">Presentation sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#introductory-remarks">Introductory remarks</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#non-lawyer">Why non-lawyer comments are sought</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation-and-freedom">Why tivoisation must be prevented: freedom</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation-and-catastrophe">Why tivoisation must be prevented: preventing a catastrophe</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#market-pressure">Could we use market pressure instead?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#lobbying">Comparing licence improvement with legislative lobbying</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#legal-maintainability">Legal maintainability - can the Linux kernel relicense?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#fsfe">FSFE's contribution to the process</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#closing-remarks">Closing remarks</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#conclusion">Conclusion</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q1">Q1: What about governments and voting machines?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q2">Q2: Won't passwords be public if a company
|
|
distributes to the government?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q3">Q3: Why was the current patent licence written that way?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q4">Q4: Will GPLv3 address web services?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q5">Q5: For example, online role-playing games?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#q5b">Q5b: Is it too late for more changes? No.</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>The Presentation</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="introductory-remarks">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Introductory remarks]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: Good
|
|
morning. I want to talk about the Linux kernel, GPLv3, and Digital
|
|
Restrictions Management. This is an issue that has gotten a lot of
|
|
attention in the press. The Linux kernel developers have a very loud
|
|
voice. One of the reasons is that for most people, the operating
|
|
system made by combining GNU and the Linux kernel is called "Linux".
|
|
So, often, the work of the GNU project is attributed to the Linux
|
|
developers. This is one of the reasons we ask for the operating
|
|
system to be called "GNU+Linux".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
They have a loud voice, but the process has been designed to make sure
|
|
that everyone has an equal voice in the process. So although we hear
|
|
more from some developers than others, they all get treated the same.
|
|
The portal gplv3.fsf.org was set up to collect comments, and this has
|
|
not been used by the Linux kernel developers. Instead they have
|
|
mostly spoken amongst themselves and have spoken to the press. This
|
|
makes it harder to respond to their concerns.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For people who haven't seen it, I want to show
|
|
the <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/">gplv3.fsf.org</a> comment
|
|
portal.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[NOTE: people reading the transcript online can see that comment
|
|
portal
|
|
at <a
|
|
href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/">http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/</a>]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When you visit the site, you get to see a copy of the
|
|
licence, and you can see the different parts of the licence have
|
|
different colours. When you click on one of the coloured pieced of
|
|
text, you will see, like in this example on the right hand side, you
|
|
will see the comments that have been made about that part of the
|
|
licence. Then, if you highlight a part of the licence, and press 'c',
|
|
you will get a small box like this where you can type in your comment.
|
|
So, to make a comment, you have to first identify what part of the
|
|
licence you have an issue with, and then you have to attach your
|
|
comment to that part of the licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We can see from the first draft that the parts that have more comments
|
|
get darker and darker. The Digital Restrictions Management part was
|
|
the darkest in the first discussion draft. Other parts that collected
|
|
a lot of comments were parts about patents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It was mentioned yesterday that people in Japan haven't commented so
|
|
much because they were shy about commenting, so one thing I wanted to
|
|
point out is that you can do this anonymously. To make a comment, you
|
|
have to make an account
|
|
on <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/">gplv3.fsf.org</a>, but you
|
|
don't have to use your real name, you can use a pseudonym.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It was also pointed out yesterday that now is an important time to
|
|
comment on GPLv3, but I don't think anyone mentioned the reason. The
|
|
reason is that the third discussion draft is due to be published quite
|
|
soon. It was meant to be published on November 23rd, but I think that
|
|
will now be delayed because of the Microsoft/Novell deal. It should
|
|
be published within the next few weeks, or few days. So if you want
|
|
your comment to be considered while the third draft is being worked
|
|
on, please submit it now. The third draft may be the last discussion
|
|
draft before the final version is published in early 2007.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="non-lawyer">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Why non-lawyer comments are sought]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Some people have been put off from commenting because this looks like
|
|
a project for lawyers. We actually have lawyers to translate normal
|
|
language into legalese. So this is a process that we hope that
|
|
developers, users, and distributors will take part in, and we have a
|
|
team of lawyers to translate into the necessary legal language.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The public process for commenting is the only process for commenting.
|
|
This is the way that comments are collected. There is no backdoor, or
|
|
secret meetings about GPLv3 besides the public process. When I want
|
|
to make comments, I don't talk to Richard directly about this, I
|
|
submit my comments to the website there. I think I've made five
|
|
comments on the last draft, you can see them there, my user name is
|
|
"ciaran".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If you find that the text is unclear, then this is also a valid
|
|
comment you can make. Or if you have a comment and you're not sure if
|
|
it makes sense, then it's still valuable to submit that to the site
|
|
because then the people who are researching the comments can look at
|
|
the parts where people are not sure if they understand the draft and
|
|
they can decide that this is something that they have to make
|
|
simpler.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We would like the licence to be simpler, and be shorter as well.
|
|
Before this process began, a lot of people were saying that the GPL
|
|
should be a lot shorter. They wanted it to fit on one or two pages.
|
|
However, when we opened up the licence and asked people what parts
|
|
should be removed, nobody was able to point out the redundant parts
|
|
that we didn't need.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When you submit a comment to the website there, it gets submitted to
|
|
four discussion committees. There is one committee of companies,
|
|
large distributors, there is one committee of lawyers, one committee
|
|
of large Free Software projects, and another committee of individuals
|
|
that have shown an interest in this area.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Each comment is discussed by these committees from their perspective
|
|
and then they collect these comments into issues and pass these on to
|
|
Richard. The four committees, combined, have approximately one
|
|
hundred and thirty people in them, so there is enough people to deal
|
|
with all the comments.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is one of the reasons why we are now updating the GNU GPL. Ten
|
|
years ago, we could not have organised a process like this because ten
|
|
years ago there were not that many Free Software users and Free
|
|
Software wasn't as global. Now we can do this with a global Free
|
|
Software community and access to tens of lawyers or hundreds of
|
|
lawyers, it's quite beneficial for us to ask them for their comments.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One complaint from the Linux kernel developers, or one Linux kernel
|
|
developer in particular, was that the committees were not being
|
|
listened to. A journalist from Newsforge contacted the committees and
|
|
they were quite enthusiastic, saying that they were being listened to.
|
|
(<a
|
|
href="http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/06/08/04/2218206.shtml">LINK</a>)
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I discussed the comment system there because one of the problems that
|
|
we've had is that the press have not reported the existence of the
|
|
comment system. They have explained the controversies, and the hype
|
|
and the disagreements, but they rarely mention when they explain these
|
|
things that if people have an opinion or if people disagree with what
|
|
is being done, they can use a comment to voice their disagreement.
|
|
This is something that I wanted to highlight, and I hope that you will
|
|
highlight, because there are many people who know about, for example,
|
|
DRM being handled by the Linux kernel, but they don't know that they
|
|
can make their voice heard, that they can make a comment.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another mistake that has been made often in the press is to talk about
|
|
the DRM issue as if it's a binary issue, a Yes or a No issue. One
|
|
clarification that has to be made about this is that GPLv3 does not
|
|
regulate DRM, it only regulates tivoisation, which is a specific case,
|
|
which Richard explained yesterday
|
|
(<a
|
|
href="http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#tivoisation">LINK</a>),
|
|
of DRM. This is also a mistake that myself and others have made when
|
|
explaining this. We often talk about DRM, when we should be talking
|
|
only about tivoisation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tivoisation-and-freedom">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Why tivoisation must be prevented: freedom]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Tivoisation has been tackled by the two drafts of GPLv3, and there has
|
|
been no discussion about not tackling it. Some people have wondered
|
|
if the process is unresponsive because they are asked for comments,
|
|
but not tackling DRM is not an option. There are two reasons why
|
|
GPLv3 will certainly tackle DRM or tivoisation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The first is that Free Software is designed to give you freedom to
|
|
adapt the software to your needs. People have pointed out that when
|
|
Tivo distribute their computer, they give you a copy of the source
|
|
code, and although you can't run modified versions on the Tivo, you
|
|
can run modified versions on another computer. The reason this is
|
|
insufficient is because Tivo contains spyware. If you receive the
|
|
Tivo, and you want to remove the spyware, it's pointless to do this on
|
|
another computer because what you want to do is you want to remove the
|
|
spyware from your Tivo so that when you use your Tivo, it doesn't spy
|
|
on you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="tivoisation-and-catastrophe">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Why tivoisation must be prevented: preventing a catastrophe]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The second reason why GPLv3 will tackle tivoisation is to prevent a
|
|
potential catastrophe. For Free Software to resist and continue being
|
|
developed, the World has to have programmable computers. Free
|
|
Software has evolved in an environment where people can reprogram
|
|
their computers. If computers were mostly replaced by
|
|
non-programmable computers, this would make it difficult or impossible
|
|
for people to develop Free Software. This sounds hard to imagine, but
|
|
it is currently happening with television. Television is being phased
|
|
out and is being replaced by digital television which cannot receive
|
|
analogue signals or have analogue output. Another example is the DVD
|
|
consortium. This is where a group of companies have made an agreement
|
|
to restrict the use of a certain type of computer. This is one way
|
|
that a cartel or a consortium could effectively replace the
|
|
programmable computers of the World with non-programmable computers.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
A second way that this catastrophe could happen is if the Tivo model,
|
|
which has proved financially sustainable by the Tivo company, is
|
|
copied by other companies. It could happen that one by one, companies
|
|
move to a Tivo style model.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Those are the two core reasons. There is also a third issue. It is
|
|
not a core reason, but it is a benefit. By prohibiting tivoisation,
|
|
we guarantee more contributors to our Free Software projects. We will
|
|
probably lose the contributions of Tivo, but this is not a big problem
|
|
because we were never dependent on Tivo. They contribute a very very
|
|
small part, a minute part of the operating system. And in return, we
|
|
will gain developers because the developers of Free Software are
|
|
people who have computers running Free Software who make small
|
|
improvements or large improvements. Currently, people who buy Tivo
|
|
computers are not contributing small improvements or large
|
|
improvements because they can't modify their Tivos. So by Tivo making
|
|
computers non-programmable, they are making people non-programmers.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The actual words that implement the anti-tivoisation provision are
|
|
quite small. The second discussion draft says that you can distribute
|
|
the software...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>
|
|
...provided you also distribute any encryption or authorization
|
|
keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
|
|
versions...<br /> (From Section 1, paragraph 4)
|
|
</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 880 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This has a very limited scope. This will only affect people who are
|
|
distributing hardware-plus-software systems, so it's probably safe to
|
|
say that it will not affect anyone in this room.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="market-pressure">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Could we use market pressure instead?]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It has been suggested that we could tackle tivoisation through other
|
|
channels. One suggestion was that we should fight tivoisation by
|
|
market pressure: if we don't like tivoised devices, we shouldn't buy
|
|
them. This is good advice, however, the Free Software community
|
|
doesn't have examples of doing this successfully before. We certainly
|
|
can't rely on this defeating tivoisation. If we do rely on it, we
|
|
will be sure to fail. Market pressure is something that the Free
|
|
Software community has to figure out how to do effectively. We now
|
|
have tens or hundreds of millions of users of the GNU+Linux operating
|
|
system, we could exert quite large market pressure but we are not
|
|
doing it because we are not organised in this way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For some hardware problems, we have to use market pressure. Sometimes
|
|
it's the only option we have, but in the case of the Tivo, because we
|
|
developed the software running on the Tivo, we are Tivo's business
|
|
partners. We don't have to stay back as a third-party, we don't have
|
|
to act only as consumers, we are partners in the development of their
|
|
project.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="lobbying">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Comparing licence improvement with legislative lobbying]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Licences can only do so much. Our licences can only place
|
|
requirements on people who distribute our software. We should do what
|
|
we can with our licences, because there is also one benefit in that
|
|
licences are in a way easier to improve. They're easier to improve
|
|
than market pressure is, and they're also easier than lobbying for
|
|
legislation. For this I'll use the example of software patents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In Europe, there was a directive, a proposal to change the law, to
|
|
make software patents exist for all the EU member states. I think
|
|
this proposal began in 1998, and it was worked on
|
|
by <a href="http://fsfeurope.org/">Free Software Foundation
|
|
Europe</a>, and <a href="http://www.ffii.org/">Foundation for a Free
|
|
Information Infrastructure</a>, and other groups. They worked on it
|
|
from 1998 until 2005, and that proposal was rejected. There were many
|
|
nights that we slept inside the parliament on the floor, and there
|
|
were many weekends that we worked, and this happened for seven years.
|
|
Although we got a significant result, we haven't finished the problem.
|
|
There
|
|
is <a
|
|
href="http://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=49">a
|
|
new proposal now</a> to introduce software patents into the EU.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I'm just giving that example to show the scale of effort needed to
|
|
tackle software patents by lobbying. Our licence cannot make that
|
|
problem go away, we have to continue lobbying, however, when we can
|
|
make life a little bit easier for ourselves without a seven year
|
|
struggle, then we should try that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Because the GNU GPL has been so successful, we haven't changed it in
|
|
fifteen years. This is because of a combination of genius and pure
|
|
good luck. Updating our licences is not something we think about very
|
|
much, but we should start thinking of it in the same category as using
|
|
market pressure or lobbying for legislation change.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The legal environment that Free Software exists in is not very helpful
|
|
for us. It was not designed in a way to help us. One of the few
|
|
benefits that it gives us is that we can determine the terms for
|
|
distributing our software. After developing this software, which we
|
|
spent twenty-five years doing, what we get in return is that we can
|
|
set the terms for distribution. This is one way we can help
|
|
ourselves, and it's something we should use.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="legal-maintainability">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Legal maintainability - can the Linux kernel relicense?]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
During the debate over should the Linux kernel use the GPLv3, one side
|
|
question that people raised was: can the Linux kernel change its
|
|
licence?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The answer is that it's going to be very difficult. The Linux kernel
|
|
has hundreds of copyright holders, and to relicense, all the copyright
|
|
holders are going to have to either give permission or have their part
|
|
of the kernel removed. This is quite difficult but it is possible.
|
|
It is possible because most of the kernel developers are still
|
|
contactable, and if they give their consent, they can change the
|
|
licence for their parts of the kernel.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For some of the kernel developers who are not contactable, their
|
|
software may have to be removed, but this does not have to happen
|
|
immediately. By changing the licensing policy of the kernel, and then
|
|
by waiting one year or two years, a lot of the old software that was
|
|
in the kernel, which has the licensing problem, will be removed
|
|
because code is often rewritten in the Linux kernel.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
After waiting one year or two years, it will probably be found that
|
|
very little code has to be removed. This process is similar for all
|
|
Free Software projects that have a similar licensing situation to
|
|
Linux. Linux is a good example because it's probably the messiest
|
|
example, it's the example with the most difficulty.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Should the Linux kernel developers go to this amount of effort to move
|
|
to GPL version 3? One answer is that we hope that they will like the
|
|
GPLv3 so much that they will decide it is worth this effort, but even
|
|
if they don't like GPLv3, they should improve the legal situation so
|
|
they can change to another licence. It doesn't have to be GPLv3, but
|
|
they should get the project into a state where the licence can be
|
|
updated. The reason for this is that we never know what a court will
|
|
say about the GPL. It has been enforced in the USA and in Germany in
|
|
courts, but we don't know what will happen in other countries. If
|
|
tomorrow there was an absurd court ruling, or a court ruling which the
|
|
Linux kernel developers disagreed with, they would have to have a way
|
|
to fix the licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So whether they want to move to GPLv3 or not, I think it would be
|
|
good if they got to a state where the have legal maintainability, so
|
|
that they can move to another licence and then our job is to make
|
|
GPLv3 as good as we can make it and hope they choose that licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="fsfe">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: FSFE's contribution to the process]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In the process, the work that FSF Europe has been doing has been
|
|
largely about documenting. Documenting, and spreading awareness, and
|
|
participating in community discussions. This is quite important
|
|
because updating our licence is a completely new project for the Free
|
|
Software community. We have never done this together on a global
|
|
scale before, and that puts us in the disadvantage that we have very
|
|
little experience, we have few experts, and we don't have a body of
|
|
discussion that people can read to become experts or to read the
|
|
arguments, for and against, about this issue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So one thing that FSF Europe has been doing is to make transcripts of
|
|
the events like this event. The four previous events, all have
|
|
transcripts made from them
|
|
(<a href="/projects/gplv3/#transcripts">LINK</a>), at least of
|
|
Richard's talk. Sometimes we have transcripts of Eben Moglen's talks,
|
|
and we have transcripts of Richard's talks from other events.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We have also undertaken writing articles about GPLv3, and trying to
|
|
constantly document the current state of the discussion so that anyone
|
|
can join the discussion without having to start at the start. We want
|
|
to document the current state and the current arguments so that people
|
|
can see what is being discussed and what progress has been made so
|
|
that people can start at the state-of-the-art, people can start with
|
|
the current status of the debate and try and progress the debate.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 1550 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="closing-remarks">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Closing remarks]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I wasn't able to check this morning but I think there are unofficial
|
|
Japanese translations of the first two discussion drafts of GPLv3.
|
|
And I also think there are Japanese translations of the change
|
|
rationale for each - these are documents explaining the reasons for
|
|
the changes. You can find those translations
|
|
on <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page">the GPLv3
|
|
wiki</a>. On gplv3.fsf.org there is a wiki were people have collected
|
|
articles and translations and transcripts, and people also use that
|
|
wiki to discuss difficult situations or situations that they are not
|
|
sure the GPLv3 tackles. If you have an issue with GPLv3 you can use
|
|
that wiki to discuss this with other people who are considering that
|
|
same problem, however, do remember to make a comment on the commenting
|
|
system that I showed earlier. This is also true when the GPLv3 is
|
|
discussed on discussion forums and on mailing lists. It's very useful
|
|
to discuss it, but do remember to submit a comment to the web forum so
|
|
that it can be reviewed and discussed and researched by the four
|
|
committees with one hundred and thirty people.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
That's mostly what I wanted to say. I was quite impressed with how
|
|
this conference has been, so I wanted to add a "well done" to Niibe
|
|
and to the Free Software Initiative of Japan, and to AIST, just to say
|
|
that it has been a well-organised conference.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span id="conclusion">(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>) [Section: Conclusion]</span>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
To close on the important information. At the top of the screen is
|
|
Free Software Foundation Europe's GPLv3 page:
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/">fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3</a>
|
|
and that's where you can find the transcripts that we've made and
|
|
links to audio and video recordings and a timeline and a general
|
|
explanation of what's happening with GPLv3.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I'd encourage you all to read draft 2 of GPLv3, and if you have a
|
|
comment, submit it. When you see the commenting system, you might see
|
|
that somebody else has already submitted a commented about the same
|
|
issue, so it may not be necessary to make a comment.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Also, while you participate in other mailing lists - technical mailing
|
|
lists or other mailing lists that don't discuss GPLv3 - it would be
|
|
quite useful if you raised the issue, just to make sure everyone is
|
|
aware of what is happening. We don't want anyone to be surprised in
|
|
January or when GPLv3 is released. We don't want anyone to say
|
|
"Oh, I wish I'd known, I wish I could have changed one
|
|
part". We need your help in that way to spread awareness. As I
|
|
mentioned earlier, the press are not doing a complete job on this.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The last thing is that I would ask you to support organisations such
|
|
as FSF Europe and FSIJ because these organisations exist to help you
|
|
work on these issues. And they also exist to work on them directly,
|
|
so if you do not want to work on these issues, you can support these
|
|
organisations so that they can work on them for you or so that they
|
|
can help other people to work on these issues. The important thing is
|
|
to make sure that enough people are working on it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
That's the summary of my presentation, thank you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1</span>: If tivoisation is
|
|
prohibited, what happens when firmware integrity is required?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: I think
|
|
there are two issues there. One is: what would happen if someone
|
|
modifies the firmware and then brakes the device because the firmware
|
|
was modified. In this case, it would be reasonable for the hardware
|
|
distributor to void the warranty if the software is modified. That
|
|
would be ok. We don't expect hardware distributors to offer a
|
|
warranty after we modify the software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The second issue of device integrity is regarding voting machines or
|
|
medical devices or other regulated pieces of hardware.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The issue of voting machines is not really an issue because the GPL
|
|
only requires that freedom to modify is given to people after you
|
|
distribute the software. However, when a government uses the software
|
|
on many voting machines, this usually does not count as distribution
|
|
because only one legal person, namely the government, is using the
|
|
software. So the government can use ten thousand voting machines
|
|
without having to give the source code or permission to modify to
|
|
people working in the voting centres, or anyone actually.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The other example there is medical devices, and this also applies to
|
|
telephones and other devices that talk over radio signals. The issue
|
|
is: how do you prevent the person from making the hardware do
|
|
something that is not permitted by law.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For example, there is a regulation for what band a telephone can
|
|
receive information from. If that has to be regulated, then that
|
|
software can be put in ROM or other unmodifiable memory. This could
|
|
be abused by other projects who might put everything in ROM, but it is
|
|
unlikely. For example, the Tivo are unlikely to put an entire
|
|
GNU+Linux operating system into ROM because [that's] making it
|
|
impossible for them to fix bugs in the system. Companies will
|
|
probably find that it is only profitable, only practical, to put the
|
|
smallest amount of code necessary into ROM. So for telephones, the
|
|
software which sets the signal that the telephone transmits and
|
|
receives by, that part of the software could be put in ROM - Read Only
|
|
Memory - a very small part of the software. And the rest of the
|
|
software could be modifiable. That would be ok, that wouldn't break
|
|
any regulations.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For medical devices, where it might happen that the entire software
|
|
must be unmodifiable, they can put the harddrive, or put the device,
|
|
behind a locked door. The people who have been complaining about
|
|
medical devices have not been manufacturers of medical devices. I
|
|
think that's because manufacturers of medical devices know that this
|
|
isn't a problem because usually you do not have physical access to the
|
|
software on a medical device because it would be inside a metal box,
|
|
or it would be inside a locked room, or it would be unmodifiable for
|
|
physical reasons.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q2">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q2</span>: What about when a company
|
|
distributes voting machine software to the government. Distribution
|
|
occurs, so aren't the passwords etc. published, thus reducing
|
|
security?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[Time: 2210 secs]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: Ah yes, this
|
|
is something I should clarify. If a company distributes software to
|
|
the government, the company will be obliged by the GPL to give the
|
|
government source code plus any passwords or encryption keys necessary
|
|
for the government to run modified versions. That's what the GPL
|
|
says. The GPL does not say that the company is required to publish
|
|
source code or publish passwords or encryption keys.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So the company can give the software to the government, and the
|
|
government can contract with the company to only give the [source
|
|
code,] encryption keys and passwords to the government. So, the
|
|
government can control of the software and the company can have
|
|
control of the software. Or further, the government could enter a
|
|
contract so that the government receives the source code and passwords
|
|
and the government also receives the ability to change the passwords,
|
|
so you can have a situation where the company complies with the GPL
|
|
and gives everything necessary to the government, and the government
|
|
can have exclusive control over the software because they can use
|
|
[DRM] privately. They can set up the restrictions to only apply to
|
|
themselves.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If the government later wants to distribute the software to another
|
|
person, then the government will be required to give the other person
|
|
source code for the software and whatever passwords the other person
|
|
needs for their copy of the software. The government will not be
|
|
required to pass on passwords that the government needs because when
|
|
you distribute the software, the requirement is that the recipient has
|
|
the ability to modify [their copy], you don't have to give the
|
|
recipient the ability to modify your copy. The password needed to
|
|
modify your copy and the recipient's copy can be different.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q3">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q3</span>: The patent licence in the
|
|
current draft of GPLv3 is not written in the same way as the patent
|
|
licences of other licences. Can you explain the reasons for this or
|
|
say what the lawyers think about this?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: As far as I
|
|
know, this was actually suggested by the lawyers. The patent
|
|
provisions in the first draft were similar to the patent provisions in
|
|
the Mozilla Public License, they were a patent licence. When you
|
|
distribute the software, you give a patent licence for the required
|
|
patents.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In draft 2, this was changed to a covenant not to sue, which in
|
|
practice is the same as a patent licence, however, the lawyers, as far
|
|
as I understand, decided that this was more likely to work the same in
|
|
every country because the idea of a patent licence has more precedent
|
|
and has more case law which could change the meaning in different
|
|
countries. This covenant not to sue should be more the same across
|
|
international boundaries.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q4">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4</span>: What do you think about
|
|
server-side programs, such as spreadsheets and word processors that
|
|
people use through their browsers? Do you think service providers
|
|
should disclose some information? Or it is outside of your interest?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: This is
|
|
something that we still have to wait to see how it pans out. We
|
|
[speakers and attendees] were actually discussing this last night. At
|
|
the moment this is not a big problem. It's similar to the web
|
|
services problem in the late 90s. In the late 90s, during the dot.com
|
|
boom, people were worried that Free Software might lose if Free
|
|
Software was run on servers as a service instead of run on desktop
|
|
machines.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For example, if someone wanted to modify the GNU Image Manipulation
|
|
Program, "GIMP", to edit photographs, they might set up a
|
|
website to edit photographs and in that way they could make
|
|
improvements to their copy without having to distribute their
|
|
improvements. During the dot.com boom, people thought this was a
|
|
business model. And a few years later, they learned that it wasn't.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In the late 90s, this looked like it might be a big problem. And then
|
|
we waited a few years, and then it wasn't a big problem. The issue of
|
|
server-side spreadsheets or word processors is a new issue and it
|
|
might become a big problem, and maybe we'll have to do something about
|
|
it, or it might stay a very small problem.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If we have to do something about it, it may happen that we have to
|
|
modify the licence, however, I can't think of something right now that
|
|
would be very helpful in the licence. Maybe we will have to do
|
|
something outside of the licence. Like the way we boycott DRM'd
|
|
hardware, and like the way we lobby against laws that create software
|
|
patents, server-side programs could be a problem that we have to fix
|
|
outside of the licence. But for the moment, I think it's safe that
|
|
the GPL version 3 doesn't need a provision about this right now.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I should add: if you do think there is something that the licence
|
|
could do, and that the licence should do, please make a comment to
|
|
<a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/">gplv3.fsf.org</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5</span>: A footnote to your last
|
|
answer. One group that I'm aware of that is worried about this
|
|
server-side closing of the sources is the Worldforge project - they're
|
|
developing online role-playing games. Of course, most of the code for
|
|
a game like that lives in the server. They were hoping that GPLv3
|
|
would help them, but it hasn't so far.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: It could be
|
|
that there is nothing that GPLv3 can do to address that, but if there
|
|
is something, I'm sure we'd welcome the suggestion, but maybe we have
|
|
to do it by installing or using good practices in our community.
|
|
Maybe we have to teach people not to become dependent on services on a
|
|
server that cannot be replicated on your own computer or on a server
|
|
that you set up. That's something we have to look at from other
|
|
angles as well.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5b">
|
|
(<a href="#menu">go to menu</a>)<br />
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5b</span>: I agree that also, in the GPLv3 process, it's too late...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ciarán O'Riordan</span>: Oh, it's not
|
|
too late. The discussion drafts are still being modified. The two
|
|
big issues are patents and DRM or tivoisation, and both of these are
|
|
being reworked for the third discussion draft. It was planned that we
|
|
would spend one year talking about GPLv3, and we're ten and a half
|
|
months into that year, but things are still quite open for change.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
As Richard mentioned yesterday, the patent provisions are being
|
|
rewritten in response to the Microsoft/Novell deal. The tivoisation
|
|
part is being rewritten. In draft 2 it was part of the definition of
|
|
source code. In draft 3, it will be part of the requirements for
|
|
permission to distribute. So we are not too late at the moment.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
With the third discussion draft being worked on right now, this week
|
|
or next week - probably this week - is a really important time to
|
|
submit comments about that, and please do.
|
|
</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="http://fellowship.fsfe.org/">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>
|