1112 lines
42 KiB
HTML
1112 lines
42 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>GPLv3 - Transcript of Ricard Stallman in Torino (Turin),
|
|
Italy; 2006-03-18</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<h1>Transcript of Richard Stallman speaking on GPLv3 in Torino; 18th
|
|
March 2006</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
See our <a href="gplv3.html">GPLv3 project</a> page for information
|
|
on <a href="gplv3#participate">how to participate</a>. And you may
|
|
be interested in
|
|
our <a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Transcripts#licences">list of
|
|
transcripts on GPLv3 and free software licences</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following is a transcript of Richard Stallman's presentation
|
|
made at <a href="gplv3-torino.html">a GPLv3 event held in Torino
|
|
(Turin), Italy on March 18th 2006</a>. A video recording of the
|
|
whole event is available at <a
|
|
href="http://streaming.polito.it/TFOFS">http://streaming.polito.it/TFOFS</a>.
|
|
The timestamps in square brackets in the transcript correspond to
|
|
that recording.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Transcription of this event was undertaken
|
|
by Ciaran O'Riordan and
|
|
published as part of <a href="/campaigns/gplv3/gplv3.html">FSFE's
|
|
work to assist the GPLv3 consultation process</a>. 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>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Sections</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#note-on-ip">First, a note on "intellectual property"</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#on-to-gplv3">On to the GPLv3</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#version-transitioning">About "or any later version" and
|
|
transitioning between versions</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#patent-grant">Software patents: explicit patent grants</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#four-freedoms">The four freedoms of Free Software</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#drm">Digital Restrictions Management: how it was tackled
|
|
without restricting usage or modification</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#drm-and-laws">DRM and laws about effective restriction measures</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#licence-compatibility">Licence compatibility</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#affero-clause">Compatibility with Affero - addressing web services, if you want</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#compatibility-with-patent-retaliation">Compatibility
|
|
with two kinds of patent retaliation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#limited-retal">The draft GPLv3 does contain
|
|
a very limited patent retaliation clause</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#displaying-the-licence">Requirements for notifying users
|
|
of the licence terms</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q1-about-linux">Question 1: What about Linux?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q2-linking">Question 2: About dynamic linking and languages</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q3a-judging-the-spirit">Question 3a: What if someone
|
|
thinks the spirit has been changed?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q3b-can-free-software-beat-drm">Question 3b: Can
|
|
writing Free Software beat DRM or is lobbying needed? (Stallman's
|
|
answer discusses democracy)</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q4-who-is-involved">Question 4: Who is involved in the process?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q5-why-you">Question 5: Why is there not a team running
|
|
it instead of you, and who will run it next time?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#q6-what-was-rejected">Question 6: What ideas for GPLv3
|
|
were rejected?</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#links">Links to documents for more information on the
|
|
topics covered</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>The transcript</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Richard Stallman:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="note-on-ip">
|
|
Before I get into the main subject, which is the plans for version
|
|
three of the GPL, I want to mention a very important fundamental
|
|
issue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 27m 06s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There is a term that some people use, which causes terrible confusion
|
|
and should never be used, and that is the term "intellectual
|
|
property". Now, I heard someone mention that term. I don't think he
|
|
was explaining why that term should not be used.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It is devastatingly harmful to use the term "intellectual property"
|
|
because that term implies the existence of something which does not
|
|
exist.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Copyright law exists. Patent law exists. They have almost nothing in
|
|
common in terms of the requirements that they put on the public. Trademark
|
|
law also exists. It has nothing in common with copyright law or
|
|
patent law about what it requires of the public. So, the idea that there
|
|
is some general thing which these are instances of already gets people
|
|
so confused that they cannot understand these issues. There is no
|
|
such thing. These are three separate unrelated issues, and any
|
|
attempt to generalise about them guarantees confusion. Everyone who
|
|
uses the term "intellectual property" is either confused himself or
|
|
trying to confuse you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 29m 12s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I came to this conclusion a few years ago and since then I have decided
|
|
that I will never use that term. No exceptions. I will talk about
|
|
why the term is confusing, because that's a useful thing to do, but I
|
|
will never use that term. I never use it. I hope you will join me
|
|
in making this firm policy of never using it. And if someone else
|
|
says something about "intellectual property", I will not respond
|
|
directly to what he said without first explaining the confusion buried
|
|
in it, because you see, the confusion buried in a statement is usually
|
|
more harmful than whatever may be false that he actually tried to
|
|
say.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The false premises, the false presuppositions are the most important
|
|
problem. So, if someone makes a statement about intellectual property
|
|
and some part of it is the specific point, which I might disagree
|
|
with, the first thing I will say is why it's a mistake to talk about
|
|
intellectual property at all, and then I will try to translate what he
|
|
said into clearer terms, and then I might say if I agree with it or
|
|
not. But that's secondary, and explaining to people the confusion in
|
|
the term intellectual property itself is the most important thing to do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There is a tendency to, we all have it, to follow other people in
|
|
their choice of terminology. If someone says an outrageous thing and
|
|
he uses the term intellectual property, you will feel drawn into
|
|
responding in the same terms. So, learn to resist that temptation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 31m 20s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The most important mistake, the most important falsehood in that
|
|
statement is its use of the term "intellectual property" in the first
|
|
place. And the most important thing about it to respond to, if you
|
|
could only choose one thing, is that one. And you can say: "and since your whole
|
|
picture of the situation is totally confused, clearly the specifics of
|
|
what you said need to be rethought".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
That's all you need to do to deal with the specific thing he said.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And, by the way, when the term "intellectual property" is used in the
|
|
name of a law or a committee, that is an example of the confusion.
|
|
It's almost a certainty that any law named "intellectual property" is
|
|
a harmful, an unjust law. Of course, you have to check the details to
|
|
be sure of that, but you can be almost certain just from hearing the
|
|
name. And the reason is that you can tell from the name that unjust
|
|
premises and confusions went into the design of the law so what could
|
|
you expect except harmfulness.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 33m 00s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="on-to-gplv3">
|
|
So, at this point, I should go to the intended topic, which is
|
|
version three of the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I designed GPL version one in 1989, and GPL version two in 1991. I
|
|
thought of making a version three something like five or six years
|
|
ago. We didn't intend to wait fifteen years. It was due to the fact
|
|
that I was busy, and there were some things that were hard to figure
|
|
out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="version-transitioning">
|
|
The idea that there would be changes in the GPL was planned from the
|
|
beginning. That is, version one already included a plan for transition
|
|
to future versions. We suggested that people release their programs
|
|
under "version one or any later version of the GPL", and the idea was
|
|
that when version two came out, it would automatically be usable for
|
|
all those programs and in the time since version two, we've been
|
|
suggesting that people release their software under "version two or
|
|
any later version" and I believe most GPL covered programs do say
|
|
that, with the result that when GPL version three comes out, a lot of
|
|
software will be usable under GPL version three.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The older versions of the GPL also promise that future versions
|
|
would be "similar in spirit". In other words, the changes will not be
|
|
radical. Any radical change would be false to the spirit and would
|
|
be wrong.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 35m 17s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The changes that we've proposed in version three are all in small
|
|
sub-issues. Some of them are very important, but in the overall
|
|
framework, they're small changes. And the overall effect of GPL
|
|
version three will be basically the same as version two, protecting
|
|
the same four freedoms, but doing it somewhat better, dealing with
|
|
some problems which we've encountered and adapting better to various
|
|
different laws around the world.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
One thing that we've done is that we've restructured some of the
|
|
concepts, for instance, we make it clear that many other activities
|
|
that have the effect of providing copies to other people are treated
|
|
the same as distribution. Anything that's covered by copyright law
|
|
which has the effect that it enables other people to get copies is
|
|
effectively equivalent to distribution, and this insulates GPL version
|
|
three from certain differences between laws in various countries about
|
|
just what constitutes distribution. So it has the effect of making
|
|
the GPL work more the same in all countries, despite precisely how they have
|
|
formulated their copyright laws.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
There are many changes in GPL version three which do something like
|
|
that, they actually just make it more uniform and more reliably doing
|
|
the same thing we expected it already did.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 37m 20s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="patent-grant">
|
|
But there are some places where we actually have changed the policies
|
|
in small ways. One of these concerns software patents. GPL version
|
|
two is based on an implicit grant of a patent licence. The idea is
|
|
that if somebody says "here is a thing and you can use it", implicitly
|
|
he's promising he's not going to sue you for patent infringement if
|
|
you go ahead and do what he said; however, since in the past eight
|
|
years or so some other Free Software licences have included
|
|
explicit statements of patent licenses, patent licence grants by
|
|
people distributing the software, and so we decided to do the same
|
|
thing, and we've included an explicit statement that the distributors
|
|
of the software all promise not to sue anybody who is using any
|
|
version of that software for patent infringement based on the versions
|
|
that they distributed. Basically, whatever their versions do, they're
|
|
promising not to sue you for.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, there's a subtlety that came up in this. What if somebody
|
|
doesn't have a patent but he has got a licence for that patent, and he
|
|
distributes the code to you. Well, does that licence he got include
|
|
your exercise of the four freedoms? Including your freedom to
|
|
redistribute copies yourself, with changes? Maybe not, but if it
|
|
doesn't, it creates a dangerous and unfair situation. Unfair to you
|
|
because he is distributing the software, or distributing his version of the
|
|
software, and he is not going to get sued for patent infringement
|
|
because he got a licence. He distributes it to you under the GPL and
|
|
the GPL says you are free to redistribute it too, but if you do that
|
|
you might get sued because his patent license might not cover you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 40m 04s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, this is unfair, this is something that's not supposed to
|
|
happen. He received this program under the GPL and the GPL says when
|
|
he distributes a version of it, he must really give you the freedom to
|
|
do the same. If he can count on safely doing it, and he knows you
|
|
will get sued if you do it, by a third party, he's cheating. So, GPL
|
|
version three, along with the explicit patent licence grant, says that
|
|
if he is knowingly relying on a patent licence for distributing his
|
|
version, he must take some effective step to protect you as well if you
|
|
distribute.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, the reason it talks about "knowingly relying" is that there are
|
|
companies that have signed blanket cross licences with other
|
|
companies, so the company distributing the program,
|
|
might have some blanket cross licence with some company, and that
|
|
blanket cross licence might cover a thousand patents, and they don't
|
|
even know what those thousand patents say. So, if they don't even
|
|
know that they have a patent licence, they're not required to pay
|
|
attention, but if they know about a specific patent that would
|
|
cover this program, that means they are knowingly relying
|
|
on a patent licence and that means they have to keep you safe as
|
|
well. This is a very controversial decision. It may seem like a
|
|
subtle point, it covers a peculiar scenario, but it's not an impossible
|
|
scenario. It could be a very important scenario. In this
|
|
scenario, this point is essential to ensure that the GPL really does
|
|
what it intends to do, which is, make sure that you do get the freedom
|
|
to redistribute the software that you got. And this is typical of the
|
|
ways that we are changing GPL version three. They apply to
|
|
complicated scenarios but those scenarios may happen frequently, and
|
|
in those scenarios we are trying to make sure that you really get the
|
|
four fundamental freedoms which that Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Did someone earlier already describe the four freedoms?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Then I better do so.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 42m 43s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="four-freedoms">
|
|
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 change it to
|
|
do what you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom two is the freedom to help your neighbour, that's the freedom
|
|
to make copies and distribute them to others when you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Freedom three is the freedom to help your community, that's the
|
|
freedom to publish or distribute modified versions when you wish.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So here we're talking about what is necessary to ensure that freedom two
|
|
really exist for you in a certain special scenario, freedom two being
|
|
the freedom to redistribute copies and also freedom three, it applies
|
|
to that too.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 43m 35s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="drm">
|
|
Another area where we have made changes concerns Digital Restrictions
|
|
Management. Now, freedom zero says you are free to run the program as
|
|
you wish for any purpose. We are not limiting freedom zero. If
|
|
someone wants to run a program to encrypt something, that's fine. If
|
|
someone wants to run a program to decrypt something, that's fine. If
|
|
somebody wants to run a program to produce an encrypted medium that's
|
|
difficult to access, that's fine. If somebody has some other GPL
|
|
covered program to access that media and he wants to run it to access
|
|
the encrypted data, that's fine too. And distributing software that
|
|
could be used for those purposes is also entirely permitted, and
|
|
will be permitted by GPL version 3.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 44m 58s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, freedom zero does not include imposing your purposes on
|
|
someone else who is going to run the program, because his freedom zero
|
|
is the freedom to run the program for any purpose of his. So, there
|
|
is no such thing as the freedom to use any software to impose your
|
|
purpose on someone else. In fact, that should be illegal. I'm
|
|
serious. And that's what DRM is.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
When somebody distributes a player, that has DRM in it, what he's
|
|
doing is trying to restrict your running of your computer for his
|
|
purposes, which is directly in conflict with the four freedoms that
|
|
you should have.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And that's what GPLv3 is in certain ways trying to stop and it does
|
|
this simply by assuring you all four of the freedoms when you use the
|
|
software. You see, because DRM - Digital Restrictions Management - is
|
|
a plan to restrict the public, anyone distributing a version of a
|
|
GPL-covered program as a player for DRM media always does something to
|
|
stop the public from modifying the player, because his purpose in
|
|
distributing a DRM player is to restrict you, he has to make sure
|
|
you can't escape from his restrictions, from his power. That means he
|
|
is always going to try to deny you freedom one. Freedom one is the
|
|
freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to do
|
|
what you want. What you want, might be, to escape from his
|
|
restrictions, and if you have freedom one, you can escape from his
|
|
restrictions. So his goal is somehow or other, for practical
|
|
purposes, to deny you freedom number one.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 47m 26s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, what he might do is, use non-Free Software, and then completely
|
|
deny you freedom number one. In fact, that's what they usually do.
|
|
We can't change that with the GPL because they're not including any
|
|
GPL-covered code. They don't have to pay attention to the
|
|
GPL. There should just be a law against it. It should be illegal.
|
|
DRM should be illegal, but we can't change laws by modifying the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
However, there are those that want to use GPL-covered software for
|
|
this purpose, and they want to do so by turning freedom number one
|
|
into a sham, a facade. So they plan to do something like, make a
|
|
modified version of the GPL-covered program, which contains code to
|
|
restrict you, and distribute that to you and somehow arrange that you
|
|
can't really modify it, or if you modify it it won't run, or if
|
|
you modify it and operate it, it won't operate on the same data.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 48m 42s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
They do this in various ways. This is known as Tivo-isation because
|
|
this is what the Tivo does. The Tivo includes some GPL-covered
|
|
software. It includes a GNU+Linux system, a small one, but it does,
|
|
and you can get the source code for that, as required by the GPL
|
|
because many parts of GNU+Linux are under the GPL, and once you get
|
|
the source code, you can modify it, and there are ways to install the
|
|
modified software in your Tivo and if you do that, it won't run, period.
|
|
Because, it does a check sum of the software and it verifies that it's
|
|
a version from them and if it's your version, it won't run at all. So
|
|
this is what we are forbidding, with the text we have written for GPL
|
|
version three. It says that the source code they must give you
|
|
includes whatever signature keys, or codes that are necessary to make
|
|
your modified version run.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
In other words, it ensures that freedom number one is real. That you
|
|
really can modify the source code, install it, and then it will run
|
|
and not only that, we say, they must give you enough to make the
|
|
modified version operate on the same range of data. Because, you see,
|
|
Microsoft's plan, which they call Palladium, and then they change
|
|
the name - they change these names frequently so as to evade
|
|
criticism, to make criticism difficult, to make any kind of comment on
|
|
their plans difficult. You talk about their plan and they say "Oh,
|
|
we've dropped that, we have a different plan now". And probably it is
|
|
different in some details, but the point is that they generate
|
|
encryption and decryption keys using a check sum of the program which
|
|
means that a different program can't possibly access the same data.
|
|
Although, that's just the base level, and then on top of that they
|
|
implement other facilities where the program simply has to be signed
|
|
by the authorised signer in order to be able to access the data.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 51m 29s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Well, GPL version three says that if they distribute a GPL-covered
|
|
program in this way, they must provide you with the key necessary so
|
|
that you can sign your version and make it access the same data.
|
|
Otherwise, they would say "Yes, you can run your modified version, but
|
|
it will have a different check sum, so your version will only
|
|
operate on data files made for your version, just as our version only
|
|
operates on data made for our version". And what that means is that
|
|
all the available files will only work with their version and your
|
|
changed version will not be able to access them. That's exactly, in
|
|
fact, how Treacherous Computing is designed to work. The plan is that
|
|
they will publish files that are encrypted and it will be impossible
|
|
to access those files with any other program, so GPL version three is
|
|
designed to ensure that you really, effectively, get the freedom to
|
|
take the program you were given, modify it, and run the modified
|
|
version to do a different thing on the same data on the same machine.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="drm-and-laws">
|
|
But, there's one other way that we're trying to thwart DRM. You see,
|
|
one thing they do is, some countries, including, I'm sad to say, this
|
|
one, have adopted unjust laws that support DRM. The exact opposite of
|
|
what they ought to do, which is prohibit DRM, and what they say is:
|
|
when media have been encoded for DRM, then writing another program to
|
|
access that media is illegal, and the way they do this is they say
|
|
that DRM constitutes an effective, they call it "protection" I call it
|
|
"restriction", measure. So, what we say is, by releasing a program
|
|
under GPL version three, you agree that it is not an effective
|
|
restriction measure. In other words, you authorise others to develop
|
|
on their own software to read the output of your program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This also is a matter of recognising and respecting their freedom to
|
|
develop software and use their computers. And this, what I've
|
|
described so far, is all that GPL version three says about DRM.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 54m 36s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="licence-compatibility">
|
|
Another area in which we've made large changes has to do with
|
|
compatibility with a wide range of other Free Software licences.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We've always understood GPL version two, and version one, as being
|
|
compatible with some other Free Software licences. Namely, those that
|
|
don't require anything except what the GPL requires. So, for
|
|
instance, there is the X11 licence, all it requires is that you keep
|
|
the licence there. This doesn't actually demand anything that
|
|
conflicts with the GPL, so we've always interpreted it as being
|
|
compatible with the GPL, and what it means to say that two free
|
|
software licences are compatible is that you can take code from a
|
|
program under licence A and code from a program under licence B and
|
|
put them together in one program and you have not violated either
|
|
licence.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If both licences permit the combining of the code, then you can
|
|
combine the code, and that's what it means to say the licences are
|
|
compatible. Now, it's very useful to be able to combine the code, so
|
|
compatibility of the licences is a convenient thing. Now, it's
|
|
impossible for all Free Software licences to be compatible. You see,
|
|
the GPL makes certain requirements and we are not willing to have them
|
|
taken off, and so another licence, such as GPL version one, that
|
|
doesn't have those requirements, cannot be compatible with GPL version
|
|
two or three. That's impossible.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
A licence like the Mozilla Public License has its own specific
|
|
requirements, but it requires things the GPL doesn't require. It
|
|
can't be compatible, I believe. So we can't be compatible with all of
|
|
them, but we went through other Free Software licences and we
|
|
identified certain kinds of requirements that are pretty harmless and
|
|
we wouldn't mind if people could attach those kinds of requirements to
|
|
GPL-covered programs, and we made an explicit list of those kinds of
|
|
requirements. Section seven of the draft of GPL version three says
|
|
you can put your own terms and conditions on code that you add to the
|
|
GPL covered program, and your terms and conditions can include these
|
|
kinds of requirements. You can also give additional permission. Any
|
|
kind of additional permission you like. So your terms on your code
|
|
can be more permissive than the GPL itself. And section seven makes
|
|
it completely explicit that this is compatible with the GPL.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 58m 22s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, these, the added kinds of requirements that you can make, include
|
|
different requirements as regards credit and notices and how to
|
|
identify changes on your code. That's harmless, that only really is
|
|
relevant when people change your code, and when they do that they will
|
|
see your terms at the beginning of your code and they will know what
|
|
to do. And it can include a requirement that they not use certain of
|
|
your trademarks in ways that trademark law forbids. And this would
|
|
just be a way of reinforcing trademark law using the copyright on your
|
|
code. And that's harmless because you could actually do that with
|
|
trademark law in the first place. So this doesn't actually restrict
|
|
people in any way that they wouldn't be restricted otherwise.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[1h 59m 28s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="affero-clause">
|
|
You can put on requirements that -- and this is a non-trivial kind of
|
|
requirement that we've decided to let people put on -- requirements
|
|
that if people run your code, on a publicly accessible server, then it
|
|
must have a command that the user can use to download the source code
|
|
of the version that is running. Which means that if someone makes
|
|
changes and puts the changes in his version, on his server, he has to
|
|
make his source code changes available to the users who talk to his
|
|
server.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This requirement is known as the Affero clause because it's used in
|
|
the Affero GPL. The Affero GPL is like GNU GPL version two except it
|
|
has this requirement as well.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
We were thinking of including some kind of requirement like that in
|
|
GNU GPL version three. We didn't want to make it apply to everything
|
|
automatically. That would be a drastic change, so we would have to
|
|
make it something that people could activate explicitly for their
|
|
programs, and then I realised people could activate it explicitly for
|
|
their programs by putting the Affero GPL on their programs and as long
|
|
as the GNU GPL says it's compatible with that, that's a way you could
|
|
activate that requirement for your code and it means we don't have to
|
|
put any specific thing about that in the GNU GPL, we only have to make
|
|
the GNU GPL compatible with it and we did.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="compat-pat-retal">
|
|
[2h 01m 33s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="compatibility-with-patent-retaliation">
|
|
There's another kind of requirement that we've decided to permit, and
|
|
this is patent retaliation clauses. Now, the reason is that there are
|
|
several other Free Software licences that have patent retaliation
|
|
clauses.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Patent retaliation means, if you sue somebody for patent infringement,
|
|
then you lose the right to use this code.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Of course there are many ways to do that because every patent
|
|
retaliation clause puts on some specifics, if you sue him or him for
|
|
patent infringement in certain circumstances, then you lose the right
|
|
to use this code, and the question is, what are those circumstances,
|
|
what are the conditions under which the retaliation operates.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Now, we saw that there are some very broad and nasty patent retaliation
|
|
clauses. Some of them say, "if you sue me for patent retaliation, for
|
|
any reason about anything, you lose the right to use this code". Now
|
|
that's bad because it means, suppose I sue you for patent
|
|
infringement and you have a patent so you counter sue me, and then my
|
|
Free Software licence retaliates against you and you lose the right to
|
|
use that code, now that's not fair because in that case you are
|
|
defending yourself, you're not the aggressor, so we decided to accept
|
|
only patent retaliation clauses that are limited enough that they do
|
|
not retaliate against defense, that they only retaliate against aggression,
|
|
so there are two kinds of clauses that we identified that do this.
|
|
One is, if the clause itself, makes a distinction between defense and
|
|
aggression, so it says, if you sue somebody for patent infringement and
|
|
it's aggression, then you lose the right to use this code, but if you
|
|
are suing in retaliation for aggression, then what you are doing is
|
|
defensive and then we do not retaliate against you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is one kind of patent retaliation clause that we accept.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 04m 21s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
The other kind is, if you sue, alleging that some Free Software,
|
|
relating to this code is patent infringement, then you lose the right
|
|
to use this code. In the broad space of possible kinds of
|
|
patent retaliation clauses, we picked two kinds, each of which is
|
|
limited enough that it will not retaliate against people for
|
|
practicing defense with patents. It will only retaliate against
|
|
aggressors. And we've said these two kinds of clauses are OK to add to
|
|
your code in a GNU GPL covered program. This is a conceptually
|
|
complicated thing. There's no way to make it any simpler, I hope, at
|
|
least, that I've explained it clearly.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="limited-retal">
|
|
The GPL itself does contain one very limited kind of patent retaliation,
|
|
but it's a different kind. It says you if make changes in a GPL-covered
|
|
program and then somebody else makes similar changes and you sue him
|
|
for patent infringement then you lose the right to continue making
|
|
changes and copying the program to your own machines.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
This is a very limited situation and it's meant to protect against one
|
|
particular kind of abuse on the part of server operators where they make
|
|
an improvement, which they're free to do, and run it on their servers
|
|
and they don't release their source code and if the code does not have
|
|
the Affero clause on it then they don't have to release the source
|
|
code, and then you decide that you are going to implement a similar
|
|
improvement and then they sue you for patent infringement.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, once again, we're making a change that keeps people honest and
|
|
makes sure that the four standard freedoms that the four standard
|
|
freedoms that the GPL has always tried to ensure, really apply in all
|
|
cases.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="displaying-the-licence">
|
|
This is pretty much it, but there is also one interesting change in
|
|
the section that deals with modified versions. There has always been
|
|
a requirement that if you get a program that prints some kind of
|
|
notice about the licence when it starts up, you can't take that out.
|
|
We've generalised that so that it applies to various kinds of user
|
|
interfaces in various ways.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, for instance, if the program is graphical and it has an "about"
|
|
box, the about box has to say "this is Free Software under the GPL". And if
|
|
it starts up interactively and asks for commands, then it has to print
|
|
the notice at the beginning, and the requirements are a little bit
|
|
different depending on how obtrusive this would be. For example, the
|
|
about box is simply a menu item sitting in a menu, well that doesn't
|
|
bother anybody, so we just say that always has to be there.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
On the other hand, printing a notice at start up can be annoying,
|
|
there are certain programs which shouldn't print notices at start up.
|
|
So what we say is that if the program that you got doesn't print a
|
|
notice and you change it, then your program doesn't have to print a
|
|
notice either. You know, if you change Bash, well Bash isn't supposed
|
|
to print a notice when it starts up and we don't require you make it
|
|
print a notice, but if you gave it a GUI, with menus, you would have
|
|
to put in an about box because the about box doesn't do any harm.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 10m 02s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="end-of-presentation">
|
|
I've covered all the issues I can think of that are worth discussing, and I am
|
|
willing to ask for questions however you can discuss a question with
|
|
me but if you think you see a problem, you should go to the site
|
|
<a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org">gplv3.fsf.org</a> and report this problem and get it considered through our
|
|
discussion committees and they'll either publish an answer eventually,
|
|
or they will pass the issue on to me and I'll think about whether a
|
|
change is needed.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, I'm ready for questions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 10m 55s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q1-about-linux">
|
|
Q1: I would like to ask, what is the position of Stallman, and to
|
|
clarify a bit about the different position of the Linux community
|
|
about Digital Rights Management.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: I can't speak for them, and I don't want to try. All I can
|
|
point out is that Linux is one of thousands of programs in the
|
|
GNU+Linux operating system. These programs already have various
|
|
different licences. If some of those programs continue to be
|
|
distributed under GPL version two while others move to GPL version
|
|
three or to "GPL version three or later", that won't be any disaster.
|
|
The developers of Linux are the ones who will decide which licence to
|
|
use on their program, but I'm confident that most of the GNU+Linux
|
|
system will be under the GPL version three, regardless of what the
|
|
Linux developers decide about their program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I hope that they will move to GPL version three because I want to see
|
|
Linux resisting Tivo-isation. Linux, after all, is one of the programs
|
|
that has already been Tivo-ised.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q2-linking">
|
|
Q2: (Question asked in Italian, something about linking and dynamic
|
|
languages)
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Actually, there are changes making it clearer that it
|
|
doesn't matter which kind of linking is being used. If there are two
|
|
modules that are designed to be run linked together and it's clear
|
|
from the design from one or the other that they are meant to be linked
|
|
together then we say they are treated as one program and so I hope
|
|
that will make it a little bit clearer although that's not really a
|
|
change, it's a clarification. That's what we believe GPL version two
|
|
means already.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q3a-judging-the-spirit">
|
|
Q3a: I have two different questions. The first is what happens if
|
|
anyone released code under GPL version two maybe ten years ago and now
|
|
isn't happy with version three and says you're changing the spirit,
|
|
when I said I would release it under version two and subsequent
|
|
version, I didn't think of these. Do you imagine he would be bound to
|
|
version three, or...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Yes. Because we're not changing the spirit. These are
|
|
small changes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q3a2: OK, so basically, you're the one who judges...
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Well, maybe a court might, but I can't believe that anyone
|
|
not strongly prejudiced would conclude that this is a change in the
|
|
spirit. A change in the spirit certainly permits change in the
|
|
details of the requirements and anyone who released it under version
|
|
two or later should have seen the changes that were made from version
|
|
one, which were not as big but they were the same kinds of things. So
|
|
yeh, if he released it under GPL "two or later" you'll be able to use it
|
|
now under version three.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q3b-can-free-software-beat-drm">
|
|
Q3b1: OK, the second question is that, as you know, I'm involved in
|
|
these United Nation processes on the Internet governance, so I'm
|
|
interested to know, do you think the fight against Digital Rights
|
|
Managements and Trusted Comp[interrupted]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Digital Restrictions Management, and Treacherous Computing.
|
|
Don't use the enemy's propaganda terms, every time you use those terms
|
|
you are supporting the enemy.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Q3b2: OK, so the correct term is Treacherous Computing right? So on
|
|
the fight against these new mechanisms, do you think it can only be
|
|
won by writing Free Software, releasing Free Software?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: I don't know.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q3b3: Do you imagine that there should be need for
|
|
intervention or lobbying at the legal level?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent" id="democracy">
|
|
Stallman: I think Treacherous Computing should be illegal. But I
|
|
don't know how we're going to convince governments to actually do that
|
|
because governments mostly are not very democratic anymore. They
|
|
mostly are the pro-consuls of the mega corporations, their job is to
|
|
keep us in line under the rule of the empire. That's why they run for
|
|
office, they get into office, they do what the emperor -- the emperor
|
|
being the mega corporations -- tells them to do, and their job is
|
|
explaining to us why they can't do what we want them to do. It's very
|
|
very sad and once in a while somebody has enough courage to refuse to
|
|
obey, somebody like [sounds like Hugo Chavez].
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q3b4: So do you think it's not even worth trying?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Oh, it's worth trying. It's just going to be hard, the
|
|
point is you have to keep putting the pressure on these politicians.
|
|
In France, there is a battle going on and we still might win it about
|
|
the legalisation of peer-to-peer copying on the Internet. This shows
|
|
that when enough people get energised, the empire can lose a battle.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
It's very important.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 19m 53s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Another thing that people should do is refuse to buy
|
|
anything that's based on DRM. Don't buy corrupt disks, that is the
|
|
fake CDs that have music set up so that you're blocked from copying
|
|
it. Don't buy DVDs unless you have DeCSS and you can copy it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
If you can't copy it - don't buy it!
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 20m 23s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q4-who-is-involved">
|
|
Q4: (Question in Italian, mentions Eben Moglen)
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Well, first, I'm the one who decides what goes into GPL
|
|
version three, and, of course, whenever I think of language I'm
|
|
usually working with Eben Moglen since he's a lawyer and he's the only
|
|
one that can tell me if the language will really do what I hope it
|
|
will do. Meanwhile, a lot of other people are involved. For
|
|
instance, you can go to the <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org">gplv3.fsf.org</a> site and study it and if you
|
|
think you see something that's not good or whatever kind of problem
|
|
you might think there is, you can report it and your comment will go to a
|
|
discussion committee and, there are four discussion committees, it
|
|
will go to one of those committees which will then group your comment
|
|
with other comments that raise that same issue and then they will
|
|
study each issue and post the issue and their response to it and your
|
|
comment will be connected to the issue which they grouped it into so
|
|
it will be connected to the response as well.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
And thus, there are probably hundreds of people participating in
|
|
checking the draft and trying to make sure it does the right thing.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q5-why-you">
|
|
Q5: In the end of the process of deciding what modifications of the
|
|
licence will be done there's one single person, that is you. Can you
|
|
explain why this decision and you have not chosen to make some group?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: I don't know other people who can do this.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
I hope that the process that's going on now will help develop
|
|
people who can be part of some group activity but at the moment, I
|
|
don't know anyone that I could delegate this to. Obviously I can't
|
|
always forever be the person doing this, barring unforeseen advances in
|
|
medical technology or AI and nanotechnology, which I certainly hope
|
|
will come soon but they're not likely, but at this point, I think this
|
|
is the right thing to do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Q5.2: Maybe it will change in the future.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: I hope. We're going to have to replace me somehow, sooner
|
|
or later.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[2h 24m 30s]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p id="q6-what-was-rejected">
|
|
Q6: You told us about what GPLv3 will be, but what about the issues
|
|
that are included, the suggestions that you refused. Can you give us
|
|
some samples?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Stallman: Well, when I decided that we had to do something to resist
|
|
Digital Restrictions Management, the obvious way to do this would be
|
|
restrictions on what kinds of jobs the program can be made to do, but
|
|
I decided that that would be the wrong way to do it and so I thought
|
|
hard and I came up with a way to achieve the job by directly
|
|
protecting the freedom of each user without any restrictions about what
|
|
technical job a version of the program can do.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another example of what we decided not to do was putting the Affero
|
|
clause into the GNU GPL in some way.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
Another example of something we decided not to do, we decided not to
|
|
put in very much in the way of patent retaliation clause and the
|
|
reason is we have doubts about how effective those clauses really can be. We
|
|
have doubts about whether our community actually has enough power that
|
|
the threat of our retaliation would scare anyone.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, these are some examples of changes we decided not to do. Some for
|
|
reasons of principle and some for practical reasons.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="indent">
|
|
So, thank you for your attention, and happy hacking.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
[applause]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="links">Getting more information</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>FSFE: <a href="gplv3.html">FSF Europe's GPLv3 project page</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>FSF: <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/">The GPLv3 website</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>FSF: <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft">The current draft of GPLv3</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="fisl-rms-transcript.html">A transcript of Richard
|
|
Stallman's talk from the 2nd international GPLv3 conference, April
|
|
21st</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html">A
|
|
transcript of the opening session of the first international GPLv3
|
|
conference</a> (Eben Moglen discusses the changes made to the
|
|
license)</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-gplv3-2006-02-25.html">A transcript of
|
|
Richard Stallman's GPLv3 talk from FOSDEM 2006</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>FSF: <a href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Reusable_texts">The page
|
|
on the official GPLv3 wiki listing transcripts and similar texts</a></li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|