Slashdot Mirror
GNU GPL law and "lagom" copyright
Johannes writes "Newsforge column on "lagom" copyright. I think we need to discuss these issues more. Maybe a GNU GPL law isn't so bad after all. As Pawlo states: "Would not a modern democratic society benefit from a plurality of irreconcilable and incompatible doctrines? We need the GNU GPL, but we also need proprietary software, Open Source software, BSD licenses, the Apache license and so forth. That would make the case for GNU GPL legislation void. However, as Lawrence Lessig taught us in his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, the code may in itself work against plurality.""
Mr Stallman completely missed the whole point of what ESR has said. What he's instead suggesting is just as bad and just as restrictive as any proprietary license.
If I write a piece of software, it is my effort and time that went in to creating that project and seeing it through. If I then decide I'd rather receive some form or remuneration (not just money), and release the package under a license that requires that the user pays me a fee and agrees to not distribute the package to others, then that is my choice.
If, by the same token, I feel that the package is something I'd like to share and get proactive feedback on, get others to help build and allow them to fit it into their environment exactly, then I'd be more likely to use a BSD-style license.
GPL destroys the rights of the individual developer or developer house to write software the way they want to right it and do with that software as they want to. Under the GPL, all software becomes the property of everyone and no one has a claim to that software.
The DMCA is one extreme, the GPL is the opposite extreme. Thats how I've grown to see it over the past 2 or 3 years that I've actually bothered taking notice of what I'm using.
I use GPL software because the license says I can. I write software under the BSD-style license because I'm able to keep the project as mine, and not give up all my rights to the over-reaching RMS.
RMS has gradually been over extending his reach into the Opensource and Free software worlds. He has been given honorary place amoung the community because for a long time, he did good. He was a great spokesman and that will never be forgotten. However, his actions lately have led me to ignore him and no longer respect him. He forces projects to follow his vision and threatens them. For that reason, I will never submit any of my works to the GNU projects, or donate towards the FSF.
I'm sorry, but the article referenced seems to imply that it would be legal and ethical to pass laws restricting or eliminating proprietary software licenses. This is totally and absolutely wrong. The copyright owner is the sole person able to determine the conditions of use of the work. To remove this principle eliminates the foundation for the free software movement.
I advocate whatever license you should choose. Personally, I like the BSD license, and dislike the GPL. But if you can only choose from a set of pre-determined licenses, do you really think the GPL is going to be a choice? There are too many vested commercial interests that want the GPL license to go away.
OK, you currently get life plus 70 years. That will allow your great-grandchildren to continue to profit from your work. Work which they had no part in, nor did their parents, nor their grandparents.
Can you explain why you don't think this is long enough?
If you really write the Great American Novel, but its genius is not recognized until 50 years after you're dead ... I say that should just be tough luck for your descendents.
I see no reason for any copyright to extend more than 30 years. If you are still relying financially on something you wrote 30 years ago ... get a day job already, you're a has-been, not a great artist.
As for your wife - if you were smart you saved and invested while you were making the big bucks for 30 years, so she should have plenty of inheritance anyway.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"
Copyright = (Literally) The right to copy.
Because books are physical, tanglible objects and are difficult to copy, there is no need for restrictive licenses. It would me more expensive for me to copy a book and give it to a friend than it would be for that friend to go out and buy her own copy.
Copying software often consists of executing a single command on a computer operating system. It can take mere minutes to copy a software program and it costs (almost) nothing. Certain restrictions are necessary (i.e., the restriction for the software program to be allowed to run on only one computer) other restrictions (i.e., the restrictions that do not allow you to transfer your license to someone else) are nonsense.
Capice?
My journal has hot
Never forget that the BSD and most other license are very weak at protecting our collective work in the current environment. Under BSD, any company could take our code, slightly change a protocol, patent it and sue the original authors,
That is simply not true. Unless their "slight change" introduces a new concept, there is nothing to patent. If it does introduce a new concept then it is the concept that is patented, not the particular software implementation that happens to build on BSD-based software. They could have patented the idea even without doing an implementation! The GPL is no protection against patents.
and even without patent it could sue for frivolous legal reasons or prevent any further work on the original source base.
The GPL is no protection against frivolous law suits either! I could sue you today for anything. GPL versus BSD has nothing to do with it.
Because intellectual property isn't. You can't own something abstrat, only goods. Copyright is a bargain between the government and the people. On the people's side, the government grants a limited monopoly on a particular idea so that the inventors/artists/etc. have a chance to profit from it. This is to promote people to do such things in the first place. On the other hand, on the government's side, the monopoly expires so that all of humanity can eventually enjoy a work.
Intellectual property is not a natural right. It's an artificial one that merely provides incentive. Once a reasonable period of time has elapsed, it should belong to the people. Personally, I favor copyright terms of life or 20 years, whichever is shorter. The number of cases of an author producing (to use the above example) the great American novel and it not being recognized are far fewer than the number of cases where humanity would benefit from works being placed in the public domain.
The last free dictionary is from 1913! It's still pretty good, but the only reason we don't have a more modern one is due to copyright law. I don't think publishing companies would lose anything from 20 year old dictionaries being available freely from gutenberg, but the people would gain a great deal.
Originally, the view prevailed that binary code was not copyrightable because it was obviously (usually) not something created by humans that was readable by them. But by analogy with encrypted cable channels, and because of a general bias towards business interests, that view changed. Today, not only are binaries copyrighted, publishers are permitted to impose onerous contracts on purchasers, something that would be obviously ridiculous if it were done with printed books. In fact, software companies are permitted to get patents without providing a working implementation (often the hard part), they can get a copyright yet fail to comply with fair use doctrines, and they keep trade secrets on stuff that they also claim copyrights on.
What all that means is that we need to rethink what intellectual property should mean for computer programs.
Now, RMS's position, is one way in which one might think about changing copyright law. It's not about some communist utopia (no-cost software may or may not be the side-effect, but it's not the goal), it's about the ability to modify programs that you paid for and share the modifications with others, and for that you need source code. You might imagine an open source requirements in which everybody who sells software and claims copyright is required to ship sources with it, but you cannot redistribute sources or binaries you receive yourself, although you may redistribute patches and other users can buy the base software from the same vendor you did. You might imagine legislating that any software license must give you at least the rights of something like the QPL, protecting commercial interests but allowing free software and giving commercial users source access. You might also imagine a requirement to put works that are not available anymore into the public domain or into some clearinghouse (this is also an issue with out-of-print books).
While some form of proprietary software, as opposed to free software, may be beneficial, I think it is pretty clear that the current legal mechanisms by which proprietary software is protected are not working very well.
It appears that there are a number of confusions in Pawlo's article that I
would like to clear up, if possible.
It is ultimately biased to discuss whether or not "someone wants to make
proprietary software illegal". Proprietary software is, as Pawlo's
article notes, based on copyright law. Copyright law is a construct
created by various legal systems throughout the world, and it makes
proprietary software possible.
Laws exist in Free societies for the good of the public. The question
that we raise in the Free Software Movement is: "When copyright law is
applied to software, does it have a negative or positive effect on
society?" And, "If that effect is negative, what changes must be made so
that the public is best served in the realm of software?"
These are hard questions to consider, and are by and large ignored in
today's Free Software debates. I theorize that they are ignored for two
reasons: (a) none of us in the Free Software community have the means to
change existing copyright law anyway and (b) we already have legal tools
that allow us to work for software freedom within the existing copyright
system. In a sense, we have a working solution to the problem.
The GNU GPL is a legal tool that works within the copyright system to
build a world with software freedom for all. However, the GNU GPL never
tries to do an end-run around existing copyright law, nor could it; it is
a copyright license. The GNU GPL is the interim solution that is designed
to give and defend freedom in a world where proprietary software exists
and is the norm.
In the future, perhaps our congresses, houses of parliament, and political
leaders will be ready to have the debate about how copyright for software
could be changed to truly serve society. The Free Software Movement
should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins. However,
we at the FSF by and large don't actively propose ideas of how software
copyright law could be changed to serve society better. It just seems
silly to play "what-if"---focusing on a message that our politicians
aren't ready nor willing to hear. So, we focus on battles we can likely
win: opposition of extending copyright law any further, and a repeal of
the DMCA and DCMA-like laws worldwide.
The Free Software Movement is unique among social movements; we currently
have the means to create the commons we want (i.e., hacking talent) and
the legal tools to defend that commons (i.e., the GNU GPL). I suggest
that we focus on building a better commons and defending the commons we
have, rather than arguing about what we would do if we suddenly became
president or prime minister.
I agree that "what-if" and self-satire are fun games to play at a cocktail
party. However, we have a serious and hard road ahead of us to win
software freedom for computer users. I hope that we can close this debate
that has dragged on and on in our community. I suggest that we focus on
what we need to do in the coming year to defend the software freedom we
have, and to give software freedom to more people who don't have it yet.
One point that it seems many people miss is that at the hypothetical end of a copyright term, you don't lose the ability to profit from your work. You just lose the exclusive ability to profit. That recognizes the fact that intellectual property, such as music, ideas, stories, etc. becomes part of the fabric of society - you can't "un-influence" a work of art on you.
The Founding Fathers recognized this - that's why they wrote a limited copyright term into the Constitution. They realized that once an idea gets out into the public, you can't hope to stop its flow. A limited copyright term balances the rights of an author to have exclusive control over their work for a limited time, against the rights of the people to use that idea in an unfettered way. I'm shocked that the current copyright abuse hasn't been ruled unconstitutional - only the most tortured logic could reconcile "life of the author + 70 years" with the "for a limited time" clause in the Constitution. Under this system, the copyrights on things produced today may outlive my children or grandchildren (I'm 26), and I have no reason to believe that Congress won't try to up it to "life + 80" or "life +100" next time Mickey Mouse's copyright comes due.
Unfortunately, copyright has now become more of a tool of corporate profits than of public progress, thanks to desire for eternal control. The copyright system that you support will eventually lead us into a system where there is no work in the public domain, and every time you do something, you pass around payment to whichever corporate entity holds the long-dead author's copyright. Land of the free, indeed. Authors and musicians were able to make a living and create lasting works before the copyright system got bastardized.
As for losing control over how your work is used, boo hoo. By keeping that tampon company from using your symphony, you're also keeping another composer from weaving parts of it into an even better symphony. Them's the breaks for publishing something - neither the ad exec or the other composer can "forget" that the work exists, so why should they be constrained in perpetuity?
I swear, the greed gets worse and worse every year.