2070 lines
77 KiB
HTML
2070 lines
77 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Richard Stallman from the fourth
|
|
international GPLv3 conference, Bangalore, India; 2006-08-23</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<div style="float:right;">
|
|
<a href="gplv3.html"><img SRC="/graphics/gplv3-logo-red.png"
|
|
ALT="GPLv3 logo" BORDER="0"
|
|
WIDTH="319" HEIGHT="130" /></a>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h1 id="top">Transcript of Richard Stallman at the 4th international
|
|
GPLv3 conference; 23rd August 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://wiki.fsfe.org/Transcripts#licences">list of
|
|
transcripts on GPLv3 and free software licences</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following is a transcript of Richard Stallman's presentation
|
|
made at the <a href="http://gplv3.gnu.org.in">fourth international
|
|
GPLv3 conference</a>, organised
|
|
by <a href="http://www.fsf.org.in/">FSF India</a> in Bangalore,
|
|
India, with the Bangalore Free Software Users Group.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Video and audio recordings are available:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Audio: <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org.nyud.net:8080/static/gplv3-india-audio.tar">http://gplv3.fsf.org.nyud.net:8080/static/gplv3-india-audio.tar</a></li>
|
|
<li>Video: <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org.nyud.net:8080/static/gplv3-india-video.tar">http://gplv3.fsf.org.nyud.net:8080/static/gplv3-india-video.tar</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Transcription of this presentation was undertaken
|
|
by Ciaran O'Riordan.
|
|
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.</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>The speech was made in English.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Presentation sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#begin">The presentation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#internationalisation">Internationalisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#patents-a-promise-not-to-sue">Patents - a promise not to sue</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#patent-retaliation">Patent retaliation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#drm">DRM</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#tivoisation">Tivoisation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#licence-compatibility">Licence compatibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#audience-question-on-the-goals-of-the-gpl">Audience question on the goals of the GPL</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#back-to-compatibility">Back to compatibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#bittorrent">BitTorrent</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#distribution-by-internet">Distribution by Internet</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#termination">Termination</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#using-the-gpl-for-non-software-works">Q1: Using the gpl for non software works</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#why-not-a-broader-patent-retaliation">Q2: Why not a broader patent retaliation</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#linux-linus">Q3: Linux, Linus</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#did-linux-help-gnu">Q4: Did Linux help GNU</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#eben-moglen-explains-the-drm-changes">Eben Moglen explains the DRM changes</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#freedom-and-thin-clients">Q5: Freedom and thin clients</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#about-intellectual-property">Note: About "intellectual property"</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#affero-and-web-services">Q6: Affero and web services</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#freedom-may-require-inconvenience">Q7: Freedom may require inconvenience</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#free-software-needs-to-be-made-easier">Q8: Free Software needs to be made easier</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#a-comment-about-the-download-change">Q9: A comment about the download change</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#mechanically-defining-infringement">Q10: Mechanically defining infringement</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#further-information">Further information</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="begin">The presentation</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[10:36]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: The overall
|
|
topic of this speech is what we've changed in the GNU GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In order to speak about this, I need to remind people what the point
|
|
of it is. The reason we change the GPL is to make it do it's job
|
|
better, so what is that job? That job is protecting the freedom of
|
|
all users of our software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Specifically, this refers to four essential freedoms, which are the
|
|
definition of Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program, as you wish, for any
|
|
purpose.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom one is the freedom to study the source code and then change it
|
|
so that it does what you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom two is the freedom to help your neighbour, which is the
|
|
freedom to distribute, including publication, copies of the program to
|
|
others when you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom three is the freedom to help build your community, which is
|
|
the freedom to distribute, including publication, your modified
|
|
versions, when you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
These four freedoms make it possible for users to live an upright,
|
|
ethical life as a member of a community and enable us individually and
|
|
collectively to have control over what our software does and thus to
|
|
have control over our computing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So any program that gives you these four freedoms is Free Software.
|
|
Any licence that respects these freedoms is a Free Software licence.
|
|
Anyone could in theory write another licence and it would be a free
|
|
software licence if he does the job right and it respects these
|
|
freedoms. So there isn't a fixed, closed set of Free Software
|
|
licences. Any licence that gives the users these freedoms is a free
|
|
software licence, and Free Software in general needs to have a free
|
|
software licence because, with today's copyright law, everything that
|
|
is written is automatically copyrighted.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's a very foolish decision, a completely foolish policy, but that's
|
|
the way it is, and copyright law by default takes away most of these
|
|
freedoms, so the only way something can be Free Software is if you put
|
|
an explicit statement on it to give people back the freedoms that were
|
|
taken away.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[14:04]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So there are many Free Software licences, they all of course are
|
|
similar in a very basic way, because they all respect the four
|
|
freedoms, but there's more than one way to do that and the biggest
|
|
distinction between classes of Free Software licences is that of
|
|
copyleft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
You see, all Free Software licences must give freedom three, which is
|
|
the freedom to distribute, including publication, of your modified
|
|
versions, but there's more than one way to do that. For instance,
|
|
some Free Software licences permit publication of modified versions
|
|
with no limits on how they are published, so that modified versions
|
|
can even be proprietary.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For instance, the licence of X11 is like this. We call it a lax
|
|
licence because it has essentially no requirements except to preserve
|
|
the copyright notice and the licence notice so people can use the code
|
|
in almost any fashion including denying freedom to other users. The
|
|
developers of the X Window System did that, I would think, because
|
|
they were more interested in popularity, for their code, than in
|
|
promoting freedom. But in developing the GNU operating system, my
|
|
goal was specifically to give users freedom. I wanted to make sure
|
|
that everyone who got the code also got the freedom. So I developed
|
|
the technique of copyleft where a licence says: "any version of
|
|
this that you distribute, must be under the same licence". In
|
|
other words, the users that get copies from you, must get from you the
|
|
same respect for freedom. So the freedom passes on through every
|
|
distributor to reach every user.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another way of saying this is that, with copyleft, we have made these
|
|
four essential freedoms into inalienable rights. Freedoms that no one
|
|
can lose because everyone is entitled to them. Or, that is, you can't
|
|
lose them except through wrong doing, or as a consequence of wrong
|
|
doing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[16:36]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another way to look at it is to say that in order to ensure that the
|
|
freedom reaches you, we have to prohibit middle men from stripping
|
|
away the freedom from the software before the software gets to you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It is this technique of copyleft that has made the GNU General Public
|
|
License popular. It's used for around 70% of all Free Software
|
|
packages. And this is a lot bigger than the number of GNU packages.
|
|
That is, software packages that are released by the GNU project,
|
|
contributed to or developed for the GNU project - "GNU
|
|
packages". But there are only a few hundred of those. There are
|
|
thousands of Free Software packages that have nothing to do with GNU
|
|
directly, but they use the GNU General Public License. The licence
|
|
was written so that anyone who is writing and publishing a program can
|
|
put the licence into it and license his program that way and many have
|
|
done so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[17:59]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is the purpose of the GNU GPL - to defend freedom for all users
|
|
of the program. So when we change the GNU GPL, we change it to make it do
|
|
this job more effectively. Partly the reason for these changes have
|
|
to do with our increased knowledge of variations between copyright law
|
|
in various countries. The GNU GPL seems to work, more or less, in
|
|
most of the World. It's been tested in court in Germany, for
|
|
instance, and lawyers in a lot of places say it will work, but in
|
|
version three we've paid attention to making sure it will really work the
|
|
same, as much as possible, in all countries.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But another reason for change is when somebody figures out a new way
|
|
to attack our freedom. There are problems that we face today that
|
|
nobody thought of back in 1991, so we're trying to rearrange our forces to
|
|
resist these threats.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Finally, in some cases we simply think of a way to make things better
|
|
for the community.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So there are changes for all of those reasons. Let me start
|
|
mentioning some of the specific changes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="internationalisation">
|
|
[Section: Internationalisation]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
GPL version two has conditions for distribution. It turns out that
|
|
the meaning of "distribution" varies quite a bit between
|
|
countries. And then there are other things like "public
|
|
performance", "making available to the public", in
|
|
various countries copyright law, and we wanted to make sure that all
|
|
these activities were permitted in the appropriate way because the
|
|
danger is that if we fail to explicitly permit them, then they might
|
|
be prohibited by default and that would not be good.
|
|
</p >
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[20:28]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, in GPL version three, we have now defined two new terms:
|
|
"propagate" and "convey". "Propagate"
|
|
means, basically, copying and/or distribution but it's not defined
|
|
that way. It's defined in a way that will get uniform results. It's
|
|
basically: anything that copyright law covers, other than running the
|
|
copy or modifying it. So that's basically going to mean copying and
|
|
distribution, but some other things too. Whatever there might be. So
|
|
when we're giving permission for propagation, we're automatically
|
|
giving permission for whatever other things might need it. But we
|
|
divide propagating into two kinds. The kinds that end up giving other
|
|
people copies, and the kinds that don't.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When it results in others having copies, we call that
|
|
"conveying" copies to others. Where we used to put
|
|
conditions on "distribution", we put them on
|
|
"conveying". This way, it doesn't matter how a country's
|
|
copyright law categorises different activities because we have
|
|
categorised them the way that's appropriate for our goal.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Regardless of how the law classifies your doing that, whether the law
|
|
calls it "distribution", or "communication to the
|
|
public", or whatever, that isn't going to affect the GPL's
|
|
conditions. The conditions do depend on some other criteria that
|
|
we've stated, of course.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So you'll find that throughout the GNU GPL, there's very little
|
|
mention of the word "distribution". There are only
|
|
occasional special reasons why we would talk about that. Instead
|
|
we'll talk about conveying. That is, doing things such that others
|
|
get copies, and no matter how you do that, the conditions are the
|
|
same.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[23:28]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="patents-a-promise-not-to-sue">
|
|
[Section: Patents - a promise not to sue]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One area that is the reason for a lot of change is: dealing with
|
|
software patents. We used to take for granted that someone who
|
|
distributed copies of a program could not sue his customers for patent
|
|
infringement, but apparently, in some countries that's not clear. It
|
|
would obviously be treachery, but, these laws are not designed to be
|
|
just.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And there's the further question, if someone distributes copies to
|
|
people and says to them: "you have permission to redistribute
|
|
this to others". Could they sue those others for patent
|
|
infringement afterwards? Apparently this is not so clear either. In
|
|
the US, it is clear: they couldn't. They've already said this is ok,
|
|
and once they say "this is ok, we agree you can do this",
|
|
they can't turn around and sue. But to make this completely clear
|
|
worldwide, we have put in an explicit promise not to sue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Our first attempt, in the first discussion draft, called it a patent
|
|
licence, but we decided that phrasing it in terms of a promise not to
|
|
sue made it more legally clear and more certain to hold up.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[25:15]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="patent-retaliation">
|
|
[Section: Patent retaliation]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So that's one big area. Another area relating to software patents
|
|
that we thought about a lot is the area of patent retaliation. You'll
|
|
notice that many Free Software licences, especially those developed in
|
|
the past seven years or so, have patent retaliation clauses which say:
|
|
"if you sue, in such and such conditions, for patent
|
|
infringement, then you lose the right to use this program". Now,
|
|
I said "in such and such conditions" because each of these
|
|
licences has a different condition on it. They're not all the same.
|
|
These various patent retaliation clauses are quite different from each
|
|
other. What they have in common is that a user can lose the right to
|
|
use the program, or lose the right to distribute the program, as a
|
|
consequence of suing for patent infringement.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
How do these differ? Some of them are totally selfish. For instance,
|
|
I think Apple is an example. Apple has a Free Software licence which
|
|
says "if you sue Apple for patent infringement, then you lose the
|
|
right to run this program". Is it "run" or
|
|
"distribute"? I can't remember.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is obviously not an attempt to create justice, this is just an
|
|
attempt to give Apple an advantage. But there are others that say
|
|
"if you sue anybody for patent infringement for using this
|
|
program, then you lose the right to distribute" ...or run or
|
|
whatever it is.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a lot more appropriate because this isn't giving one party an
|
|
advantage. This is just trying to protect everybody from a dastardly
|
|
kind of attack.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So patent retaliation isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be
|
|
perfectly legitimate. When we saw this idea, we started thinking
|
|
about doing a thing like this ourselves. So the question was: what
|
|
kind of patent retaliation should we do? What is effective? What is
|
|
necessary?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[27:50]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We ultimately concluded that there is one specific case of patent
|
|
retaliation that was important for us to do. That is, concerning the
|
|
case where somebody has privately modified a program, which means he
|
|
doesn't release it and he doesn't have to release it, but then someone
|
|
wants to make similar modifications and the first guy sues him.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Y'know, someone, for instance, got a GPL'd program and put it on his
|
|
network server and makes improvements, and since he's not distributing
|
|
it, he doesn't have to make the source code available, but people
|
|
talking to his server will see the improvements. So someone else
|
|
might think "I'll write them too". What if the first guy
|
|
has patented the techniques that went into those improvements and then
|
|
starts suing other people that tried to implement it themselves?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, we figured out a way to set up patent retaliation in that case.
|
|
The one who does this kind of patent law suit loses the right to
|
|
modify the program any further. Which means he effectively can't
|
|
maintain it, which means it's effectively not usable for his business
|
|
because, for a business to be using a program that can't be maintained
|
|
is a very precarious situation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's written this way because we didn't really want to try to take
|
|
away that persons right to run the program, not explicity. We felt
|
|
that would be going too far, both legally and ethically. So, instead,
|
|
just retaliating by taking away the right to modify the program ought
|
|
to be just as effective in practice, unless some business wants to be
|
|
running a program they're not allowed to maintain. Which would be not
|
|
practical. In effect, they can't feasibly run it for their business
|
|
anymore. We hope that will do the job.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">...to the extent that patent retaliation can protect
|
|
us, because of course, the threats of patents can come from any
|
|
direction, and there's no reason to assume that the patent holder has
|
|
been kind enough to make use of our software at all. It's only a tiny
|
|
fraction of the danger of software patents that we can even try to
|
|
protect against, using a Free Software licence. The only real
|
|
solution to the problem of software patents is not to have any.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[31:02]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Audience member</span>: [inaudible]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes, but
|
|
there are countries that have software patents. We can't wipe them
|
|
out by writing something in our licence or by having an opinion. So,
|
|
given the existence of countries that have software patents - it's not
|
|
just the US - we've got to consider the question of whether we can
|
|
sometimes protect ourselves. And this is not the first time.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Section 12, which used to be section 7, is a previous attempt to
|
|
protect ourselves. That's the clause that says if you are told you
|
|
can't distribute in accord with the GPL, then you can't distribute at
|
|
all. So this prevents somebody from getting a patent licence which
|
|
allows him to distribute in a very limited way and then doing so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This, essentially, makes everybody resist by taking away the
|
|
possibility of selling us out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Audience member</span>: So, if I may
|
|
continue, you must have considered this, how about adding a clause
|
|
that says if you ever sue anybody for a software patent on any
|
|
software, you lose the right to use this software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[32:40]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, first
|
|
of all, we don't want to do that because when somebody is sued, he's
|
|
going to try to counter sue, and this is a very common practice, so we
|
|
don't want to retaliate against those who are suing as retaliation.
|
|
We only want to retaliate against aggression. So, indeed, we've made
|
|
a provision for that, and I'll talk about that under
|
|
"<a href="#licence-compatibility">licence
|
|
compatibility</a>". We haven't done that, but we'll let you do
|
|
that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We keep looking for ways to protect the users from the danger of
|
|
software patents, but there's only a limited amount that any software
|
|
licence can do this. The thing that makes software patents so
|
|
dangerous is that somebody that you've never heard of and with whom
|
|
you have no relationship whatsoever can have a patent covering a
|
|
technique that you implemented, and sue you for the code you wrote.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is precisely why software patents are so bad, and since you have
|
|
no relationship with that person, there's no opportunity for any
|
|
licence on your software to have any effect on him. So all we can do
|
|
is get rid of a small part of this large danger for all software
|
|
developers.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="tivoisation-and-drm">
|
|
[34:12]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="drm">
|
|
[Section: DRM]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another area that we're trying to deal with is tivoisation and DRM.
|
|
DRM - Digital Restrictions Management - is the practice of
|
|
distributing to the public, software, or hardware, whose purpose is to
|
|
restrict the public. It's set up by conspiracies of companies that
|
|
are formed with the specific purpose of restricting the public's use
|
|
of technology.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This ought to be a crime. And, if we had governments of the people,
|
|
by the people, for the people, then the executives of those companies
|
|
would be in prison. But they're not in prison, and the reason is that
|
|
we have government of the people, by the sell-outs, for the
|
|
corporations.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
These conspiracies exist and they don't even try to hide. They set up
|
|
websites. We don't have to speculate. We don't have to look for
|
|
evidence to prove these conspiracies because they admit exactly what
|
|
they're doing. They're not secret conspiracies, but they are
|
|
conspiracies.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Our supposedly democratic governments are not satisfied merely with
|
|
allowing them to set up these conspiracies. They actually give these
|
|
conspiracies special help. This started in the United States with the
|
|
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That law says many things, but the
|
|
controversial part is the part that says "whenever a work has
|
|
been published as part of a conspiracy to restrict the public, so that
|
|
the authorised players all restrict you, then any distribution of
|
|
another player, which doesn't restrict you, is illegal".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Consider DVDs. DVDs are an example of this - Digital Restrictions
|
|
Management. The movie is in encrypted form, and the idea is that the
|
|
DVD conspiracy will only give a company the secrets of this format if
|
|
the company agrees to restrict the users according to the rules of the
|
|
conspiracy. So all the authorised players restrict the public the
|
|
same way, and no progress is being made in terms of new features in
|
|
DVD players because the conspiracy won't allow it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[37:12]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But then some people figured out the format and they wrote a free
|
|
program which could play a movie off a DVD. And this program, which
|
|
is called DeCSS, has been censored by a court in the US. Distribution
|
|
of this program is illegal. Even telling people where to find it,
|
|
where they can get it overseas, is illegal.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So DRM is not just a matter of implementing a nasty malicious feature
|
|
in the program itself. It goes further than that and it becomes an
|
|
attack on our freedom, through the effect of these laws. The United
|
|
States has such a law, the European Union has such a directive which,
|
|
has been implemented in an extremely nasty fashion in most of the
|
|
countries, and now India is considering a similar law, and the
|
|
deadline for comments was last month. It was sped up. They were
|
|
considering this law, and then they decided they had to rush it. Why?
|
|
I guess because if the citizens knew that their freedom was being
|
|
attacked, they might get organised and say "don't do this".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's vital to organise on this issue now. There's no obvious national
|
|
emergency that would argue for acting hastily in a change in the law
|
|
that could easily have an effect for decades. There's nothing urgent,
|
|
but they're rushing anyway.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[39:24]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[untranscribed: Richard has a dicussion with someone about
|
|
distributing material the following day about this proposed law]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[41:50]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
First they implement software that restricts the user. Then they want
|
|
to make it illegal to change that, but they want to do this with Free
|
|
Software too. They want to use GPL covered software to implement
|
|
restrictions on the user and then forbid the user to take them out.
|
|
This conflicts conflicts directly with freedom number one. When you
|
|
get a copy of a GPL covered program, you're supposed to get the
|
|
freedom to study the source code and change it so that it does what
|
|
you want, but the DRM implementers don't want you to be able to change
|
|
it. They want to take advantage of this freedom by putting in their
|
|
change, so that they implement DRM, they make the program restrict
|
|
you, and then they want to stop you from having the freedom to take it
|
|
out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="tivoisation">
|
|
[Section: Tivoisation]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And, of course, they want to stop you from having to distribute
|
|
versions in which it has been taken out. For this, they employ a
|
|
technique that we call "tivoisation". It's named after a
|
|
product called the Tivo which records all the television channels in
|
|
parallel so that the user can watch television shows at any time later
|
|
on.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The Tivo has various forms of nasty features in it. For instance, it
|
|
won't let you copy any of these recordings out of the Tivo, and I
|
|
think it erases them eventually, and it also spies on the user by
|
|
reporting everything that the user actually watches.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[43:48]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The Tivo includes a GNU+Linux operating system as the base. And since
|
|
this is under the GPL, and some parts being under the LGPL but for
|
|
this it's the same, they are required to provide the source code to
|
|
users, and the users get the freedom to modify the code. So you could
|
|
modify this code, you could compile it, you could install it in your
|
|
Tivo, and then it won't run. Because the Tivo is designed so that if
|
|
it sees the code has been modified - if it's not a version that was
|
|
authorised by them - it shuts down.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So it has a list of checksums of authorised versions, and unless your
|
|
version is in there, you can't run it at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In other words, tivoisation makes freedom number one into a sham.
|
|
Theoretically, ostensibly, the users are free to modify the software
|
|
to make it do what they want, but practically speaking, the freedom is
|
|
a joke.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's not supposed to be a joke, it's supposed to be for real. So
|
|
we've made changes in GPL version three to resist tivoisation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[45:10]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The basic change is that if someone, say the manufacturer of the Tivo,
|
|
provides you a binary, then he must, as part of the requirement to
|
|
provide the source code, give you whatever it takes to authorise your
|
|
version so it will run.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So we have not prohibited DRM. You can modify a GPL covered program
|
|
to do anything at all, including restricting the person using it. And
|
|
you could distribute that to other people, but we insist that they
|
|
have the four freedoms so that they are free to take out the malicious
|
|
feature that you put in.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom has to be for everyone. Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to
|
|
subjugate someone else. Freedom means everyone controls his own
|
|
life.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Because of these various laws that have been adopted or proposed in
|
|
various countries, making it illegal to modify the software to bypass
|
|
these conspiracies, we've put in another clause - actually a pair -
|
|
which were designed to overcome that. There's one thing which is
|
|
designed for the US law, and there's another with is designed for the
|
|
European directive, and in both cases they say: "if you
|
|
distribute a GPL covered program as part of the technical means of
|
|
restricting the users, then you're also giving the users permission to
|
|
bypass those restrictions".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, yeh, you can write restrictions into the code and distribute that,
|
|
but you can't cite the restrictions in the GPL covered program as a
|
|
basis for prohibiting the user's other software which is designed to
|
|
escape from the restrictions you put on it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[47:46]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="licence-compatibility">
|
|
[Section: Licence compatibility]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Aside from this, the bigest change in GPL version three, as we've
|
|
drafted it so far, is a change for licence compatibility. This is an
|
|
area where the goal is simply to make the licence work better for the
|
|
community. It's not responding to any change, but just our
|
|
realisation that we can help things.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We have formalised what it means to add additional permissions or
|
|
additional requirements to the GPL. Adding additional permissions is
|
|
nothing new. There are lots of programs that say: "you can use
|
|
this under the GNU GPL version two or later, and in addition, we give
|
|
you permission to do this and that".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
That additional permission comes from whichever developers put it on
|
|
their code, so somebody making a modified version doesn't have to
|
|
propagate this additional permission. He could release his modified
|
|
version under the pure GPL, but he could also give, if he wishes, the
|
|
same additional permission with his code by keeping the additional
|
|
permission on there.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is not obvious. It takes a bit of thinking to realise that this
|
|
is how things work, so we have explicitly stated it. You can add
|
|
additional permissions to your code, and then people who pass it along
|
|
can keep it or take it off, and people who modify it can extend the
|
|
additional permissions to their changes, or not, as they wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is not a change, this is just formally stating what's true
|
|
anyway.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[49:40]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The change is, at the same time, we also let you put certain kinds of
|
|
additional requirements explicitly on your code. Some of these
|
|
additional requirements are essentially trivial, and our view is that
|
|
you could always add them. Like, a licence which says: "you
|
|
can't remove my copyright notice from my code". That's trivial.
|
|
We consider such licences to be compatible with the GPL already.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But, in addition to those, we've also permitted a few kinds of
|
|
substantive requirements. Some of which are not trivial, and which
|
|
therefore increase the range of existing licences which are compatible
|
|
with the GPL. This includes, for instance, copyright-based
|
|
requirements not to misuse certain trademarks. Now, there are some
|
|
licence which simply state: "such and such is our trade
|
|
mark". That has nothing to do with the licence for the copyright
|
|
on the code. So there's no incompatibility there. Trademark law is a
|
|
different law, and if they have a certain trademark, they're saying:
|
|
"here's what we do with our trademark".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are some licences which say: "as a condition for doing
|
|
things under the copyright on the code, you have to obey our trademark
|
|
requirements". That's different, that does conflict with the GNU
|
|
GPL in version two, but in version three we have explicitly given
|
|
permission to add this kind of requirement.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So this just means that there are certain licence provisions that are
|
|
actually in use which no longer will create an incompatibility.
|
|
People will be able to merge GPL covered code and Apache code, for
|
|
instance. That'll be quite useful.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There's another provision in the Apache licence, a patent retaliation
|
|
provision, and in fact we've also given permission to add certain
|
|
kinds of patent retaliation permissions. I told you before that some
|
|
kinds of patent retaliation are just, and some kinds are just a power
|
|
grab. We had to design these conditions to distinguish patent
|
|
retaliation that promotes justice from patent retaliation that just
|
|
grabs advantage. We permit the former and not the latter.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="audience-question-on-the-goals-of-the-gpl">
|
|
[Section: Audience question on the goals of the GPL]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Audience member</span>: I have a
|
|
question. In this fast, commoditising World...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I don't know
|
|
what that means, so I'm not sure I agree that the World is that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Audience member</span>: [...] in this
|
|
new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next
|
|
version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a
|
|
profit?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[54:00]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: That's
|
|
unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all
|
|
proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be
|
|
a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a
|
|
program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect
|
|
the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is
|
|
part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom
|
|
are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical
|
|
convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to
|
|
get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Of course, the GNU GPL only applies to programs that are released by
|
|
their developers under the GNU GPL. So whatever we put in the GNU
|
|
GPL, it doesn't affect all software, it only affects the software
|
|
whose developers release it that way. So we can't get rid of
|
|
proprietary software by writing the GPL this way or that way. What we
|
|
can do, however, is make sure that our Free Software is not made
|
|
proprietary by anybody, and that's the idea of copyleft. It's saying
|
|
that when you redistribute this, with or without changes, you must do
|
|
it under this licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The goal of this is precisely so that nobody can get away with making
|
|
proprietary software out of our code. What we've said is: proprietary
|
|
software is wrong, we can't in general stop you from releasing
|
|
proprietary software. We can refuse to use it, and that's what we do,
|
|
and we can make Free replacements for it, and that's what we do, but
|
|
we can't stop you from releasing it, but we can stop you from copying
|
|
our code into it. There, copyright law gives us, essentially, this
|
|
power, and we're using this power, not to gain power over others but
|
|
just to protect everyone's freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[56:27]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But I want to get back to what I was saying.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The point is that these changes in GPL version three have no effect on
|
|
any of that. As you can see from the changes I've described, they all
|
|
affect detailed aspects of the situation. Your question only relates
|
|
to the general purpose of the GPL, which is not changing and will
|
|
never change. So none of these changes I've described will have any
|
|
relationship to that question.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One can ask: "How do businesses respond to GPL version
|
|
three?" But I won't answer that now, I'll leave Eben something
|
|
to say.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="back-to-compatibility">
|
|
[Section: Back to compatibility]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, in effect, what this increased compatibility does is it makes
|
|
copyleft a little bit looser. Now, when you change a GPL covered
|
|
program, the licence of your version doesn't have to be exactly the
|
|
same. There is a certain limited and precisely defined range, within
|
|
which you can change it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="bittorrent">
|
|
[Section: BitTorrent]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change we've made has to do with BitTorrent. BitTorrent is a
|
|
system that helps lots of people redistribute copies of something, and
|
|
it's quite often used to distribute Free Software. And it turns out
|
|
that the way BitTorrent works is not allowed by GPL version two. It's
|
|
so strange, the way it works, that anybody who is downloading it is
|
|
automatically distributing it - whether he knows it or not - but of
|
|
course we want BitTorrent to be allowed. So we designed a new clause
|
|
which allows BitTorrent, which permits it to be used, and in general
|
|
gives permission for people to just go ahead and do peer-to-peer
|
|
distribution in harmless ways.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="distribution-by-internet">
|
|
[Section: Distribution by Internet]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another change that we have proposed, but we have not finally adopted
|
|
- and we're looking very much for comment on this - is for the
|
|
requirement for how you must provide people source code on demand, if
|
|
you have distributed binaries without source code.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In GPL version two, and always in the past, what we said was:
|
|
when you distribute binaries, you must either provide source code
|
|
alongside them, or provide people a written offer by which they can
|
|
order the source code by mail.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
People said: why not just say you could put the source code on a
|
|
network server, and let people download it?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The reason is, downloading large amounts of software was just so slow
|
|
that it was not feasible. For most users, to download the source code
|
|
corresponding to an entire CD-ROM fifteen years ago was just
|
|
ridiculous. If we had permitted that, it would have effectively
|
|
saying: you don't really have to make the source code available, not
|
|
in a practical way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But things have changed, and it's not just that a lot more people have
|
|
broadband, even in some fairly poor countries, but there are now
|
|
services where you can just say, for a very small amount of money:
|
|
please copy that off the Net and mail it to me on a disk. And this is
|
|
actually cheaper than the mail orders than the actual distributors
|
|
would have had to do. The result is that it seems that we can now
|
|
give them the option of just putting the corresponding source on a
|
|
network server that they're going to keep running for a certain
|
|
minimum period of time after distributing the binaries.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Please look at that issue and comment to us, because if there is a
|
|
problem with this, it would be in poorer countries where there are a
|
|
lot of people that can't afford broadband. So the question is: is
|
|
this really adequate? Please take a look.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="termination">
|
|
[Section: Termination]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another place in which we've made a change is with regard to
|
|
termination. The licence only terminates in response to wrong-doing.
|
|
That's what it means for these freedoms to be inalienable rights. In
|
|
GPL version two, you lose your rights under the licence if you ever
|
|
violate it, and that's automatic. Of course, legally, to make this
|
|
effective, the copyright holders are going to have to enforce it.
|
|
They're going to have to say: "we want an injunction, you've got
|
|
to stop distributing this because you've violated the licence, you
|
|
forfeited the licence, so now we want the court to enforce that".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But the point was that the termination itself was automatic and
|
|
instantaneous. This is actually not really so good when people make
|
|
violations accidentally, because even if they notice it the next day
|
|
and correct it, they still have lost their rights.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If you do this with one program, you can go to the developer and say:
|
|
"would you please give me back my rights, it was an accident and
|
|
I've corrected it?" And the developer will usually say
|
|
"yes" because why would he say "no".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But what if you do this with an entire GNU/Linux distribution with
|
|
three thousand programs in it? And what if there are a hundred
|
|
thousand or a million copyright holders? It's just not feasible.
|
|
What we have done is, we have changed GPL version three to say that
|
|
the termination doesn't happen instantly. Instead, the copyright
|
|
holder can terminate your rights by just telling you: "I've
|
|
terminated your rights". But if you correct the problem, and
|
|
then the copyright holder waits and doesn't terminate your rights
|
|
within a certain period time, then he can't do it anymore.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:03:29]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This way, if you make a mistake in the way you distribute a GNU/Linux
|
|
distribution and somebody tells you and you correct it, and then a
|
|
period of time goes by and nobody complains, then you're safe. Of
|
|
course, if you keep on violating the licence, they can always
|
|
terminate your licence. It's only if you've corrected it and then
|
|
time goes by that you are then safe.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, I think I have described all the substantial changes. It's now
|
|
eleven o'clock. I guess that's probably less time than they figured,
|
|
but I suppose, why not be briefer than expected. But I'll answer some
|
|
questions before I go away.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="using-the-gpl-for-non-software-works">
|
|
[Question #1: Using the GPL for non-software works]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q1</span>: [inaudible]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: First of
|
|
all, the GNU GPL can be used for any kind of work. I wouldn't always
|
|
recommend it for all kinds of works. For instance, for a research
|
|
paper. A research paper is a report of what some people have seen,
|
|
and I think the appropriate licence for that is "verbatim copying
|
|
only". Just as that's the appropriate licence for an essay of
|
|
opinion, I think. That's why I use that licence for my essays of
|
|
opinion that you can find on <a href="http://www.gnu.org">gnu.org</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But certainly, it can be used for things that are not programs, and
|
|
is. Any kind of work that isn't meant mainly to be distributed in
|
|
printed form, you could perfectly well use the GPL. And actually,
|
|
there's the possibility, if we go ahead with this "you can
|
|
distribute the binaries and then make the source available for
|
|
download", maybe the GPL is heading in the direction of being OK
|
|
for books too. It will take more thought to consider that. We're not
|
|
going to deal with that in GPL version three. But it's an interesting
|
|
avenue for the future.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="why-not-a-broader-patent-retaliation">
|
|
[Question #2: Why not a broader patent retaliation]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q2</span>: Why did you not consider,
|
|
or did you consider and reject, having a broader patent retaliation
|
|
clause in the licence?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: We concluded
|
|
that in other cases than the one where we did it, it was not likely to
|
|
be effective. We do not want to stand in the way of other people
|
|
doing it, and we don't want to reject compatibility with other
|
|
licences just because they do it, but it didn't look like it would be
|
|
effective. Of course, if someone proves us wrong, then maybe we'll do
|
|
it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:06:46]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="linux-linus">
|
|
[Question #3: Linux, Linus]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q3</span>: [barely audible: the
|
|
question is about the Linux kernel]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Linus
|
|
Torvalds objects, with an irrational kind of stubbornness, to one of
|
|
our goals. Namely, preventing tivoisation. He wants people to be
|
|
able to tivoise the products that you use, and thus take away your
|
|
freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This should not be surprising. Linus Torvalds never supported the
|
|
Free Software movement. He sort of accidentally drifted into making a
|
|
contribution to the Free Software community, but not because he ever
|
|
supported our goals. And so he has actually said that he is against
|
|
our aims of defending freedom for all users. What can you do?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, he doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="did-linux-help-gnu">
|
|
[Question #4: Did Linux help GNU]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4</span>: The question I had is a
|
|
follow up question on the tivoisation issue. One of the, I would say
|
|
that, even if Torvalds was not really aligned with the goals of the
|
|
Free Software Foundation. I would say that the success of Linux was
|
|
instrumental in bringing a lot of people into the fold of GPL...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes and no,
|
|
but remember though, that when people talk about "the success of
|
|
Linux", usually they mean the success of GNU, because usually
|
|
when they say "Linux", they are talking about the GNU
|
|
system, and most people are not aware of this. Most people, when they
|
|
look at the GNU system, they think it is Linux and they think it was
|
|
developed by Linus Torvalds. They don't realise that we had it mostly
|
|
finished already and he just wrote the one last piece.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4b</span>: Even if I grant that,
|
|
because I have no reason to disagree with you on that statement, the
|
|
point I'm trying to make is, many governments, for example, have take
|
|
a policy decision, not to align themselves with proprietary software
|
|
because they now have an alternative platform on which they can build
|
|
applications...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Sure, but if
|
|
you're trying to argue that Linux the kernel, which Linus Torvalds did
|
|
write, is an important contribution, I agree completely. That was the
|
|
step that carried us across the finish line. Before that, we had most
|
|
of an operating system, but with one crucial piece missing, most of an
|
|
operating system doesn't do the job. He put in that one missing piece
|
|
and we had a complete system, and that was a lot better.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's a large piece, and it's an essential one, so of course it's an
|
|
important contribution. I'm not going to deny that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But the point is, he did it for other reasons. He never really agreed
|
|
with us, so it shouldn't be a surprise that he doesn't agree with us
|
|
now.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4c</span>: Yes, but the point I'm
|
|
trying to make is that, I would say, the open source movement has been
|
|
very successful, largely because of the GPL version two licence...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, I'm
|
|
rather sad about that because I don't agree with the open source
|
|
movement. I've never supported open source and I never will. Open
|
|
source is the way that people co-opt our work and bury our ideals.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Linus Torvalds is an open source supporter. If you look at the things
|
|
he says, you'll get an idea of the ideas of open source, which are
|
|
quite different from what I've said today. I'm talking about the Free
|
|
Software movement which I founded twenty-three years ago so that we
|
|
could use computers and live in freedom. It's all about freedom.
|
|
This is exactly what the open source rhetoric tries to bury.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
They never talk about freedom as their goal. They don't say:
|
|
"you are entitled to the freedom to change and control the
|
|
software you use, and the freedom to share it so that you can
|
|
cooperate with others". They never say you're entitled to
|
|
anything. The very idea of raising this as a moral issue, they
|
|
reject. That's why they focus on talking about a development
|
|
methodology, and they recommend the development methodology because
|
|
they say it tends to result in practical advantages.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, I'm glad to the extent that's true. If respecting people's
|
|
fundamental freedoms as software users also results in powerful
|
|
reliable software as a by-product. Great, that's a nice bonus. But I
|
|
would insist on freedom even if it meant less reliable, less powerful
|
|
software because I want to live in freedom, and I want to work for you
|
|
to have freedom too.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:12:37]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is what the open source people won't say. The whole point of
|
|
open source is to avoid ever mentioning this. So, I'm not necessarily
|
|
happy that the open source movement, to the extent it is a movement,
|
|
has success.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I say "to the extent it is a movement" because the free
|
|
software movement is a social movement. It's a social movement in
|
|
every sense. Open source is not. It's a kind of campaign, but I'm
|
|
not sure it's a movement.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In any case, to the extent that their success is also our success, I'm
|
|
glad. At the practical level, it often is. Most open source licences
|
|
are also Free Software licences. Nearly all the time, when somebody
|
|
is convinced by the open source movement and develops an open source
|
|
program, it is Free Software. So it's a good thing. Practically
|
|
speaking, that work is a contribution to our community. I'm not going
|
|
to criticise it just because of what motivations it had. But, at the
|
|
deeper level of teaching people to value freedom, which is the most
|
|
important thing we have to do, the talk about open source does not
|
|
help us. And you can see the difference between these philosophies
|
|
showing up in the disagreement between Torvalds and us.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4d</span>: I appreciate that
|
|
clarification, I think that certainly helped me. I did have a very
|
|
specific question on the tivoisation example you used to make your
|
|
point. This is in the context of freedom. If I understand correctly,
|
|
and correct me if I'm wrong, under the GPL version three, if I were to
|
|
use a piece of software on a piece of hardware, say a piece of
|
|
hardware for a video system, and under the GPL three, if I was allowed
|
|
to modify it and distribute it that's not going to change. I will
|
|
still need to do that. What you are taking issue with is the idea
|
|
that the hardware vendor, or the system vendor, has the right to lock
|
|
a certain version of the software to his device.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Exactly.
|
|
Because freedom one is supposed to apply to every user of that
|
|
software. Freedom one says you're free to change the program and make
|
|
it do what you want.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:15:27]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So the point is, you better be free to change it and then install it
|
|
in your computer. If he has taken steps in the hardware to make sure
|
|
you can't install it in your computer, then that is denying you
|
|
effective use of freedom number one.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4e</span>: The point is, aren't you
|
|
extending the notion of freedom beyond an acceptable point?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, I
|
|
don't think so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4f</span>: Well, let me complete my
|
|
question. Although the user has the right to modify and install it on
|
|
whatever hardware he wants, why do you... it appears to me that GPL
|
|
version three takes a position that he must be able to modify it, and
|
|
get it to work, and receive the same services
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: No, I said
|
|
nothing about that. You're just criticising something I...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4g</span>: I just want a
|
|
clarification.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: If they say:
|
|
"running modified software voids the warranty", that's ok.
|
|
Or, they could say: "we'll only provide support if it fails using
|
|
the standard software". That's perfectly legitimate, because if
|
|
the hardware is broken, it will fail with the standard software too.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We're not insisting that anybody go out of his way to help you change
|
|
the software, or that he spend his time debugging the bugs you
|
|
introduced into the software. It's easy enough - companies will
|
|
understand this - it's easy enough for them to verify that it is
|
|
running the unmodified software before they do any service. And they
|
|
will bill you if you say "it's broken and it's under warranty,
|
|
fix it", and you see that he broke it, if this starts happening,
|
|
it's easy enough to develop ways of protecting yourself by saying
|
|
"since you actually broke it, you're going to have to pay us for
|
|
shipping it back to you, plus twenty dollars for wasting our
|
|
time"
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:17:42]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="eben-moglen-explains-the-drm-changes">
|
|
[Section: Eben Moglen explains the DRM changes]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Eben Moglen</span>: Richard, may I
|
|
offer a comment here? Lets work through what the rights and freedoms
|
|
were in the line of descent. Through that manufacturer and the
|
|
hardware.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
So Hardware Manufacturer A takes GPL'd code written by B, C, and D, as
|
|
he has a right to do. Maybe he modifies it. He puts it in some
|
|
hardware where he still has the right to modify it. He ships it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
At that point, he has a requirement under existing GPL to convey to
|
|
the person to whom he gives that hardware with the software in it, all
|
|
the rights he got from the people who gave the software to him.
|
|
Right?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Suppose Manufacturer A puts B, C, and D's GPL software in some
|
|
hardware and sends it to you and says "I'll let you modify the
|
|
software in the box I just sold you, if you pay me an extra thousand
|
|
dollars". There's no question that that violates GPL version 2.
|
|
It's the addition of a requirement beyond the licence burdening the
|
|
customer's right to modify, which he was supposed to get from you
|
|
without any change. Right?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<!-- XXXXXXXXXX -->
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
If he tries to do that by legal means, that is, to give you less
|
|
rights to modify than he has himself, it is a clear violation of all
|
|
versions of the GPL - two and three together. Version three says:
|
|
don't try to use technical means to accomplish a refusal to give over
|
|
all the rights that you got, which you could not accomplish by legal
|
|
means.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
If Manufacturer A wants the software he sells in the hardware to stay
|
|
one version forever, he has a simple way to do it: he can put the
|
|
software in ROM. He has no power to modify it, and the user to whom
|
|
he gives it has no power to modify it. That doesn't violate GPL
|
|
version two and it doesn't violate GPL version three, in current draft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
We will not publish a draft that would be violated by that conduct.
|
|
What we object to is the attempt to say "I will keep the right to
|
|
modify the software, but I won't allow you to have the same right of
|
|
modification that retain" because that's simply a technical way
|
|
of evading the requirement of the licence to pass along all the rights
|
|
you got.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:20:29]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
I don't think that this constitutes an expansion of the copyleft in
|
|
any sense at all. I think it constitutes an attempt to eliminate a
|
|
technical mode of evasion, unforeseeable in 1991 when there were no
|
|
instances of embedded GPL'd software in the World.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
I think all we are doing is extending an obvious rule that you may not
|
|
pass along less right of modification than you have yourself to the
|
|
context where the attempt to keep the right of modification is ensured
|
|
by a technical rather than a legal device. I think that's the best
|
|
and simplest answer to the question.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4h</span>: So, I guess, if I were to
|
|
modify the software on a Tivo box, and actually have the ability to
|
|
get it to work on a Tivo box. That would be fine, for GPL3. And it
|
|
would also be fine if the service provider detected that I made a
|
|
modification and didn't deliver service to me. That would be ok.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Eben Moglen</span>: There you begin
|
|
to ask another question, which can be resolved clearly by the same
|
|
analysis I offered before. Suppose that in my original example,
|
|
Manufacturer A gets software from B, C, and D. He sells you both
|
|
hardware and services, and he says "I'll give you the right to
|
|
modify the software, but you have to pay me more for the services if
|
|
you modify". Again, that's clearly forbidden under GPL2. That's
|
|
a legal attempt to create a service monopoly. Even though the
|
|
software is free. He can't do it by legal means, why should he be
|
|
allowed to do it by technical means.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
In general, if a provider of software offers conditions that are based
|
|
on remote attestation that you have not modified the software, he's
|
|
once again giving you less right to modify than he has himself. And
|
|
again the same question arises. If what he wants to do is, for
|
|
example, run a cellphone system in which he wants to provide GPL'd
|
|
software in the phone, but he only wants to provide services so long
|
|
as the software is not modified, let him put it in ROM. Forgo his own
|
|
right to modify, same as the customer's right of modification. But a
|
|
World in which he intends to keep the right to modify, without passing
|
|
it along to you, is an evasion of the licence - however sophisticated
|
|
his method of explaining why it is that he keeps a right to modify the
|
|
device that you don't have.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="freedom-and-thin-clients">
|
|
[Question #5: Freedom and thin clients]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5</span>: I have a question related
|
|
to modification again. This is again related to what hardware
|
|
manufacturers do with Free Software and take away freedom from people.
|
|
I work in the thin client domain, and almost all thin client vendors,
|
|
HP, [Viosin], others, take commodity PC hardware, strip it down, put
|
|
in Free Software as firmware which lets you connect to proprietary
|
|
software using rdesktop, and they bundle it all up and on top of a lot
|
|
of Free Software components they'll put a small user interface
|
|
connection manager. And they provide it. They first of all claim it
|
|
is their intellectual property.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Don't use
|
|
that term. Never use that term.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5b</span>: They do that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I'm sure
|
|
they do, but you should never imitate them because the idea that the
|
|
term "intellectual property" even makes sense is a lie.
|
|
It's a way of twisting people's thought. So when you quote other
|
|
people saying it, that's not clear enough to reject it, so you really
|
|
shouldn't quote that term unless you're going to explain why it's
|
|
misleading. Really, it's terribly important. I want you to continue.
|
|
I don't want to stop you from what you're saying, but after this is
|
|
done, <a href="#about-intellectual-property">I will explain why</a>
|
|
that term should never be used.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5c</span>: I have a strong objection
|
|
to that term being used, particularly with Free Software. Now, they
|
|
charge a lot of money, and because a lot of hardware is commoditised,
|
|
you can't sell hardware anymore, so you put in a lot of software that
|
|
you don't make, call it your own, package it, and then in a number of
|
|
ways you take away people's freedom to modify. The simplest case it,
|
|
I buy a thin client, lets say, and it's got firmware on an IDE flash,
|
|
I cannot take it out and put it in another commodity hardware because
|
|
they lock it down. And they don't do simple things like, the kernel
|
|
only has drivers for your hardware. They TPM it, they put in a two
|
|
dollar TPM chip on the board and they lock down Free Software to their
|
|
particular hardware.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: This is what
|
|
we're trying to prohibit. But the question is, if you think they're
|
|
doing something extremely clever that we haven't thought about, you
|
|
need to show us exactly what they're doing, as a way of making sure
|
|
that GPL version three will actually prohibit what they're doing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5d</span>: I'd like to see,
|
|
actually, GPL versions prohibiting people from copying binary forms of
|
|
Free Software just because there's a drop of proprietary software in
|
|
that binary.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: But they're
|
|
not allowed to mix them. To mix them in a binary would be a violation
|
|
of the GPL anyway.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5e</span>: It's a completely
|
|
different binary, lets say it's a connecton manager, or it's their
|
|
logo.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, if
|
|
it's a different program, then yes they're allowed to put them on the
|
|
system, but they're not allowed to restrict your rights in using the
|
|
free programs.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5f</span>: How it's restricting -
|
|
and, now, I deal with very naive users - is, for instance, most of
|
|
what I deal with is schools in India. They can't rebuild the entire
|
|
image. What I'd like to see is, if you're giving Free Software based
|
|
binaries with your hardware, you put out your entire distribution, so
|
|
to speak, an entire toolkit that helps people take out what was
|
|
proprietary.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:26:42]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well, the
|
|
point is, that's more or less what the GPL requires anyway. If they
|
|
are combining proprietary and GPL-covered code in such a way that it's
|
|
hard to seperate them, that's already a violation of the GPL. So
|
|
report them, we've got to enforce it against them, we've got to make
|
|
them stop.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="about-intellectual-property">
|
|
[Section: About intellectual property]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Anyway, the term "intellectual property" is a propaganda
|
|
term which should never be used, because merely using it, no matter
|
|
what you say about it, presumes it makes sense. It doesn't really
|
|
make sense, because it lumps together several different laws that are
|
|
more different than similar.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
For instance, copyright law and patent law have a little bit in
|
|
common, but all the details are different and their social effects are
|
|
different. To try to treat them as they were one thing, is already an
|
|
error.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
To even talk about anything that includes copyright and patent law,
|
|
means you're already mistaken. That term systematically leads people
|
|
into mistakes. But, copyright law and patent law are not the only
|
|
ones it includes. It also includes trademark law, for instance, which
|
|
has nothing in common with copyright or patent law. So anyone talking
|
|
about "quote intellectual property unquote", is always
|
|
talking about all of those and many others as well and making
|
|
nonsensical statements.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, when you say that you especially object to it when it's used for
|
|
Free Software, you're suggesting it might be a little more legitimate
|
|
when talking about proprietary software. Yes, software can be
|
|
copyrighted. And yes, in some countries techniques can be patented.
|
|
And certainly there can be trademark names for programs, which I think
|
|
is fine. There's no problem there. But these are three completely
|
|
different things, and any attempt to mix them up - any practice which
|
|
encourages people to lump them together is a terribly harmful
|
|
practice. We have to totally reject the term "quote intellectual
|
|
property unquote". I will not let any excuse convince me to
|
|
accept the meaningfulness of that term.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:29:15]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When people say "well, what would you call it?", the answer
|
|
is that I deny there is an "it" there. There are three, and
|
|
many more, laws there, and I talk about these laws by their names, and
|
|
I don't mix them up.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="affero-and-web-services">
|
|
[Question #6: Affero and web services]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q6</span>: [inaudible, but mentions
|
|
"Affero"]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: The Affero
|
|
clause. Ah. Right, that is one of the added requirements that GPL
|
|
version three says you can add on your code. When you add code to a
|
|
GPL covered program. What this clause does, is, it requires that if
|
|
somebody installs he program on some kind of network server that the
|
|
public can talk to, it requires giving the public a way to download
|
|
the source also - of the version that is running.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The regular GPL does not require this. The reqular GPL says you can
|
|
install the program on your server and you don't ever have to release
|
|
the source of what you're running - or release the binary. You can
|
|
just keep it on your server, without ever releasing it at all.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The affero GPL is another licence which already exists and has this
|
|
requirement saying that if you put a version of this program on a
|
|
server, you've got to make available your source code to the people
|
|
who use that server. So if the server is only available to a certain
|
|
group of people, only they could get the source code.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If it's available to the general public, then the general public can
|
|
get the source code. If it's available only in your company, then
|
|
only people in your company can get the source code. All of those are
|
|
ok.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The Affero GPL was made from GPL version two, but because of this
|
|
requirement, it's incompatible with GPL version two. It's called the
|
|
Affero GPL because it was made by a company called Affero, but it was
|
|
made with our support. The idea is to make GPL version three
|
|
compatible with a modified version of the Affero licence. They will
|
|
modify the Affero licence and thus cause all these things to be
|
|
compatible.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:31:57]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="freedom-may-require-inconvenience">
|
|
[Question #7: Freedom may require inconvenience]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7</span>: [This question was
|
|
difficult to hear and may have inaccuracies] My name is [...] and I'm
|
|
from Bangalore. I'm running an organisation called [...]. I'm doing
|
|
an anti-trust litigation against Microsoft India on the grounds that
|
|
[...] is forcing Bangalore to use the MS Net. It is not Free
|
|
Software, it is a proprietary program. We made a public interest
|
|
litigation, to the high court. I come to the mic with this one
|
|
question: Last month, I purchased a laptop [...] Sahara, it comes with
|
|
free Linux software...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Oh you mean
|
|
GNU+Linux.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7b</span>: Linux, Linux operating...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: It's
|
|
GNU+Linux, please give us credit for our work. I'm happy to hear that
|
|
your laptop came with our system on it, with GNU, and with Linux the
|
|
kernel. Please do not call the whole thing "Linux". You're
|
|
being unfair to us every time you say that.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7c</span>: I came very late because
|
|
of [...]. Anyway, having seen that they sell Linux...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: They sell
|
|
GNU and Linux.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7d</span>: So, it's not compatible
|
|
with Apple [inaudible], and Corel, and Microsoft...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: That's
|
|
right. But those are proprietary programs anyway, so, for ethical
|
|
reasons you shouldn't use them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7e</span>: [...] because Linux is
|
|
not compatible with Apple, or Corel, or Microsoft, my friends told me
|
|
to switch over to Microsoft.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well that's
|
|
very bad. Did you do it? Did you do it?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7f</span>: I have done it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Oh, how sad.
|
|
Well, thanks an awful lot.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7g</span>: Coming here now, I have
|
|
realised I have done a mistake. Now, do you have a solution, how I
|
|
could use it? [...] GNU and Linux, and Yahoo, [...] Apple [...]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: GNU and
|
|
Linux will enable you to live in freedom, at least as regards your
|
|
computer is concerned, because, of course, it won't guarantee your
|
|
freedom in other areas of life. We can't do that by writing software,
|
|
but at least in your own computer you'll be able to live in freedom if
|
|
you insist on Free Software. I'm not going to repeat what I said at
|
|
the beginning of this talk, because it would take to much time, but
|
|
there is a recording being made, so you can listen to what I said at
|
|
the beginning, about this very issue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
But, y'know, freedom, it's not guaranteed that you can have freedom
|
|
without ever any sacrifice. The sacrifice will certainly include that
|
|
you don't use Autocad, because Autocad is a non-free program. It
|
|
tramples your freedom. So you have to get rid of Autocad to have
|
|
freedom.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In regard to a drawing program, I think maybe, did you say Corel Draw?
|
|
I couldn't hear the list. But we have drawing programs, like
|
|
the <a href="http://gimp.org/">GIMP</a>. Or Inkscape, but I've never
|
|
used those things.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The point is that in some cases there is Free Software you can use to
|
|
do those things. In some cases maybe there's not, and when there
|
|
isn't, that means, at least temporarily, to live in freedom requires a
|
|
certain sacrifice. Fortunately not a big sacrifice.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are times when freedom has required people to sacrifice their
|
|
lives, but here we can win freedom with nothing more than an
|
|
inconvenience. I'm sure there was a time in your life when you hadn't
|
|
got a computer and didn't use any of those programs. And somehow, you
|
|
got through it and you didn't die.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[laughter]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:37:20]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="free-software-needs-to-be-made-easier">
|
|
[Question #8: Free Software needs to be made easier]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q8</span>: My name is [...], my
|
|
request is. I am just a common person, we are not aware of this Free
|
|
Software. [inaudible]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: We're doing
|
|
our best, y'know. We've been working on developing Free Software for
|
|
twenty-three years now, and we've done a lot and there's still more we
|
|
have to do. In order for us to do more, more have to volunteer.
|
|
We're doing what we can, so to ask us to do something is sort of the
|
|
wrong approach. We need people to come forward and say "I want
|
|
to do something". Then we can do more. That's what it takes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:38:08]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="a-comment-about-the-download-change">
|
|
[Question #9: A comment about the download change]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q9</span>: [barely audible, sounds
|
|
like a comment on the proposal to replace mail-order offers with
|
|
Internet download offers of source code]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Don't tell
|
|
me now. Submit comments through the
|
|
site <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/">gplv3.fsf.org</a>, because if you
|
|
do that, they'll be recorded and we will not forget them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q9b</span>: I just want to say, for
|
|
India, the time has not come. Broadband is in cities, but when you go
|
|
out of the towns and other areas...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes, but the
|
|
point is that that doesn't necessarily... read the explanation there
|
|
and you'll see that that does not imply that this is a bad idea.
|
|
That's not enough to reach the conclusion that this is a bad idea, so
|
|
please read what's stated there, and you'll understand the situation
|
|
fully and you'll be able to comment in a way that is completely
|
|
relevant.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="mechanically-defining-infringement">
|
|
[Question #10: Mechanically defining infringement]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10</span>: Hi, my name is [...].
|
|
You said that the mixing of two binaries in a way that they are not
|
|
easily separated from each other is a violation of GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Yes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10b</span>: When exactly would you
|
|
say that the two programs are not [easily] seperated?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: There's no
|
|
simple answer to that, I'm sorry. Show us a case, and we'll think
|
|
about it, and we'll come up with arguments to make to a judge.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10c</span>: Lets say I have a
|
|
program that uses free libraries, which are...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Well,
|
|
linking them together like that is clearly combining them. The rules,
|
|
based on the existing GPL, are too complicated for me to try to recite
|
|
them to you. All I can say is, yes, the GPL makes conditions in that
|
|
case.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10d</span>: That means any such use
|
|
is a violation of the GPL?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Some kinds
|
|
may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it depends on details, very
|
|
much. But linking components together is certainly combining them.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Eben Moglen</span>: Richard, can I
|
|
make a comment here? Here's the problem. The problem that you're
|
|
facing in asking the question, and the problem that Richard is facing
|
|
in trying to answer it. When you try to take two disciplines of
|
|
thought that use different primitive quanta - different units of
|
|
meaning - there's not going to be a congruent mapping between one
|
|
vocabulary and the other - as there is no guarantee that there is a
|
|
one-to-one match between words in Hindi and words in English.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The problem is that the unit of meaning in copyright law is the
|
|
work, whatever the work is. That's the unit in which copyright law
|
|
speaks. So the author, or authors, of a work have certain exclusive
|
|
rights, including the rights to control modification and
|
|
distribution. GPL says, we give most of those rights to the user, in
|
|
the work, rather than withholding them, as proprietary users do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
What's the unit of a program? Not the work. Computer science has
|
|
defined many quanta of meaning in computer program since I began
|
|
decades ago. The subroutine, the function, the module, the object.
|
|
Each of those is a unit of meaning in a language of computer activity,
|
|
but it's not the work under copyright law.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Between the the quantum: work, and the quantum: module, library, file,
|
|
function, object, procedure, there is not a one-to-one mapping, and
|
|
the consequence is that when we attempt to exert our intention in
|
|
copyright law, we only speak in terms of the work. We must use the
|
|
vocabulary of copyright. Since that doesn't map neatly to the
|
|
vocabulary of computer programming, no matter what that vocabulary
|
|
happens to be, given the dominant paradigm of program construction,
|
|
there is guaranteed to be a zone of uncertainty.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: I disagree.
|
|
I wouldn't say that you're wrong. What you're saying is right, but
|
|
there's something even deeper to be said, which is that what you're
|
|
saying is not a problem. It sounds like you're describing a problem,
|
|
but in fact, criteria... because of the fact that in a program you can
|
|
express the same thing in many different ways, and you can rewrite it
|
|
to use many different ways to communicate, any kind of criteria drawn
|
|
up in terms of the technical boundaries that exist in programs would
|
|
be a bad criterion because it would be too easy to play games with it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If there were a criterion about files, well, it's easy to move
|
|
something from one file to another. If the criteria were about
|
|
subroutines, it's easy to split up a subroutine. You see what I mean?
|
|
Any criteria formulated in terms of the technical entities of
|
|
programming would be too easy to game around.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Eben Moglen</span>: As when, for
|
|
example, people tried to draw a line between static linking and
|
|
dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to keep telling
|
|
people that whatever the boundary of the work is under copyright law,
|
|
it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link time or run
|
|
time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever they are,
|
|
don't map neatly into the language of copyright, which is the language
|
|
of the licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard Stallman</span>: Nor into the
|
|
intentions of the GPL. Because, the point is, if we drew the line in
|
|
the kind of clear way that programmers want, in terms of technical
|
|
points, then it would be easy for somebody to evade the intention of
|
|
the GPL just by taking that line as the instructions on how to do it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, by making it so clear, in a mechanical sense, we would be
|
|
undermining the goal.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1:45:40]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[End of talk and Q&A as the session breaks for tea; 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>
|
|
|
|
<li>An Indian newspaper published an interview which Richard
|
|
Stallman gave while in
|
|
Bangalore: <a
|
|
href="http://www.hindu.com/seta/2006/08/31/stories/2006083100441500.htm">Free
|
|
software: taking on dominant market forces</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|