Slashdot Mirror
GPL to be Modified to Penalize Patents and DRM
null etc. writes "MSNBC is running an article about how upcoming changes to the GPL will retaliate against companies that patent software or produce DRM'ed products. "Software patents are clearly a menace to society and innovation. We like this to be more explicit. The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause.""
This is the GPL that SHOULD be tried in court. It's about time that a stop is put to the abuse of the patent system by greedy corporations. They don't have right to profit. It's a privelege and one they should have lost long ago.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The GPL is a license. It's an agreement between the parties using the software: producer and consumer (including subsequent developer). What does that have to do with the political agenda of "fighting software patents"? The GPL protects the software it covers from being patented. Its distributors have no further rights beyond the use of the software they provide under the GPL. Certainly not rights to tell the user what they can do with other software that doesn't touch the GPL'd software.
I share the political agenda that opposes software patents. But the GPL is absolutely inappropriate for use in that political battle. How does antipatent clause keep the GPL'd software any more free? Of course it doesn't - and it doesn't keep the user any more free, either. It removes their freedom to do as they please with other code, even code they write themselves. This is an outrageous political stunt, a transformation of the merely legal GPL to a political weapon in a larger, only tangentially related war.
What happens when Chinese software makers include a license that says users must not "oppose the will of the people, the rule of the Politburo"? What happens when Pakistani programmers require that users submit to the will of Allah before linking to their libraries? What happens when Texan programmers require users to register Republican before distributing their patched version of the new CRM package? Probaly, everyone will ignore those political terms. Maybe everyone will refuse to use the package. Either of those responses to a political GPL will destroy the effectiveness of the GPL, almost entirely a voluntary honor system just beginning to pick up momentum. For the sake of our code, the GPL, and our freedom, we must not let them screw us all with a political GPL that leverages our freedom into enlising us in their political agenda.
--
make install -not war
>>>> All software should be FREE!
>>>>
>>>> So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.
-----
yea right kiddie, you are probably just another of those free software users who has never spent sleepless night behind a computer trying to make a living from it.
programming is work as is anything else where people use their mind to create something from nothing. now if i really decide to write something for free, then this is *charity*.
would you go to a car factory or to a food market and tell them that "hey dudes, i want your cars/food for free!" , they would be pretty sure to classify you as a nutcase.
opensource free software is great, yes, i like to use it too (heck, i run debian and ubuntu every where i go), but everything has it's limits.
if you invent a superior antiwind shield for automobiles that is 50% better than the ones used right now, would you just go to car makers and say, hey, take it for free ? or would you prefer to charge some millions for it at first ?
it's the same with software, if someone writes code that indexes a database/filesystem 33% faster than anyone could do before, they have the right to ask money for it. weather they do it or not is up to them.
ofcourse if i write a patch or a simple program like some irc client or webserver addon, i dont go running around and screaming patents-profit-yada-yada , but there are pieces of software that deserve patents and i dont think you (according to you attitude here) are in any position to judge the authors of these special software pieces.
summary : free software is great, patenting yellow buttons is bad, patenting really complex pieces of software is actually pretty damn right, not everything you can think of should be free.
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
Well, I must be the only one here, but I do believe that an anti DRM and Software Patent clause in the GPL is a good idea. For a start, people have got to realise that the GPL was never meant to be a "nice" license. This license was born out of the continuing threat against developers and against their desire to share sourcecode with others (If you think the desire to share code is not under threat, check for a specific clause in your contract with your employer that states that all software you develop is theirs). So yes, in a sense, and as it has long been accused, the GPL is viral, and this is being demonstrated here. But it's no more viral than the first article of the Human Rights declaration. And in essence, the GPL is the equivalent of the Human Rights declaration for Software. A lot of whining going on around the GPL, and it being too restrictive already, can be pretty much interpreted to people using the first article of the declaration of Human Rights to their advantage ("Hey, I'm as egal as anybody else, so give me the rights to access your GPL'd sourcecode"), but then complaining that it is in some way too restrictive to their interest ("Couldn't I be more equal than others and not share the code I developed out of GPL'd elements?"). And here lies the true secret of the GPL. The GPL is not directed at helping you. It is directed at helping others "benefit" from you! Understood, it is hard to relinquish your rights from something you invested a lot of time and effort in, and not profit from it. But I think it is time we collectively realize that unchecked capitalism will never profit mankind as much as the free (as in free beer) sharing of resources. Of course, some of you will disagree with this last statement. But then, have you started seeing a trend between increased capitalism and an even smaller number of individual controlling more and more of the planet's resources? How long till you are excluded from that small circle and trying to play catchup with people who will not relinquish any of their developments (because, after all, they have no incentive to do so whatsoever)? Oh, and while we're at it, does my believing that capitalism is notthe ultimate answer make me a communist? I sure hope not! Now, why would they want to add a clause against DRM and Software Patents to the GPL? The answer is fairly simple if you consider how viral capitalism really is (even more so than what Microsoft has been accusing the GPL of) When no safeguard exist between a capilastic and a somewhat nicer and more altruistic approach, which one do you think will prevail? Which one do you think will try to use the other to its advantage? Just consider where we would be if the greatest ideas in science had been patented and DRMed from the beginning of the 20th century onwards? Do you really think you would be posting on /. for a start?
"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.
I guess Greve is a new minion/spokesperson for Stallman.
First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.
But Stallman's attempt to put his politics into the license will result in utter failure. DRM is here whether Stallman or slashdotters like it or not, and any attempt to "punish" these people will just result in utter failure for the GPL v3 - even if the license is legal.
This stuff coupled with extending the viralness of GPL v3 in relation to web services will just result in people using GPL v2 and making GPL v3 completely irrelevant and Stallman and the FSF even more irrelevant than they are today.