Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software
bonch writes "Richard Stallman has written an article on the GNU Web site describing the effect the Swedish Pirate Party's platform would have on the free software movement. While he supports general changes to copyright law, he makes a point that many anti-copyright proponents don't realize — the GPL itself is a copyright license that relies on copyright law to protect access to source code. According to Stallman, the Pirate Party's proposal of a five-year limit on copyright would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products. Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power."
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software
FTFY
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
If access to source code is truly a right, shouldn't that right be enshrined in law from day one?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Talk about trying to have it both ways.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
. . . film at eleven . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
All the source code r belong to us!
I'm pretty sure Lessig already proposed this 5 years ago. Both ideas of short copyright and a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.
Badass Resumes
Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.
Honestly, merely reducing copyright to 40 years from creation would be a MASSIVE step in the right direction.
Stallman == Irrelevant Wacko
Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power.
Why not require the source code to be submitted with the copyright registration?
We played Stallman Says at computer camp last summer. It's like Simon Says except the winner gets a fake beard to wear for the rest of the afternoon.
I... don't kiss many girls.
Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth.
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits. He goes after Linus, Mozilla and Google, never realizing who his friends are in the FOSS world. He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
Except RMS claims DRM is evil, and the GPL to be some holy mandate.
True freedom is public domain. Public domain certainly doesn't protect your code from being copied or stolen. Each developer has to make the decision themselves how to restrict usage of their creation. RMS can't claim that his list of restrictions is the only acceptable set of restrictions.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition? If so, why is he trying to mandate protection for it in the law? Sure, mandate that states can't ignore open source just because it doesn't include junkets and dinners with executives, but forcing people to open their own software just to "level the playing field"?
That sounds like an idea from someone who's afraid that maybe his side won't measure up. "Yes, we're better! All of our software is inherently better, and anyone who tries it will clearly see that! Now, let's force the other side to ruin their business plan and do things our way, because otherwise they have an unfair advantage!"
A patent-like right for software that lasts for a much shorter time than an ordinary patent that has as its requirement that the source code for the software be released. Basically reward companies for releasing source code by granting a short term exclusive right of some kind for doing it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Richard Stallman is jealous that pirates have the better beards.
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderful.
Software copyright is the only form where the material has no automatic way to enter the public domain when it should. Some kind of escrow as a requirement for protection would do the trick.
Stallman makes a good point. One problem with copyright at present and the distribution models is that it actually inhibits the development of knowledge and civilisation by making information more difficult to maintain. I would like to see copyright terms rolled back to what it was originally before it was extended so many times, and also for copyright to expire immediately when the work is no longer being published or being made accessible at the similar cost it was originally offered at. The copyright could be reinstated if the work is offered again by its author for a similar price as it was originally offered. I would like to see an ability to pay scheme introduced that would allow poor/low income persons to access knowledge at a lower cost, and for access to software at reduced cost for hobbyist use. one of the problems with commercial software is it is so often so expensive, the price can sometimes be the same for a revenue producing busienss as a non commercial hobbyist. The development model and source is also closed which retards the improvement of the software, and takes away control of users from being able to understand what the software they paid for and they run on their computer is doing, or offer their own improvements to the software. I would like to see more of a model adopted by companies of an ability to pay price structure, and where they provide source code to those who use the sotware, even if under a proprietary source licence.
After the Ninja's appointed him as their leader with the katana, it appears that this is just another battle in the seemingly endless war between Ninjas and pirates.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Shouldn't he pay more attention to his operating system, and not TPB?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Expensive Operating System and Brand Name Software Companies
Corrected it for you.
I think that the optimal number of years is closer to 15, it should be treated like "classic cars" are in Pennsylvania. This is enough years that publishers have had sufficient time to make profit, that the work has had sufficient opportunity to make and exploit its cultural impact, and is not so many years that the work is lost from lack of preservation.
In terms of software, 15 years is quite a bit of time, enough that software is unlikely to be of significant commercial use, so that copyright-lapsed software shouldn't too seriously affect the sales of modern solutions. Open sourced material lapsed into the public domain wouldn't be as much of a concern as it would be within a 5 year period.
If this was in force today, old versions of the GNU toolkits, the X11 system, and even Linux itself would be in the public domain. That might seem scary, but we're talking really old versions. If someone in 2009 wants to include Linux 0.99 into their embedded product without contributing their changes back, I'm not sure thats really a bad thing.
Stallman was at my university for a lecture a few months ago. Halfway through he starts lambasting our IT department, most of whom are in the audience, for requiring users to authenticate before gaining network access. The school has a policy specifically *banning* tracking usage or anything invasive. They only require that users provide a username/password before getting network access, and he tears them a new one.
The IT department, BTW, is moving *away* from proprietary (specifically Microsoft) products. Right as the IT department is moving *to* open source, one of FOSS's biggest names decides to publicly hate on them.
If the purpose of copyright is to give exclusive rights to a work of intellectual property for a given period to promote the creation of those works before they are added to the wealth of the public domain then what does that mean for copyrighted closed-source software? It seems like the public would be entitled to the source of any software when the copyright for that software expires because people don't tend to just copyright binaries.
This leads to some awkward problems with closed source projects that we don't tend to find with other copyrighted works because it raises the risks that a copyright owner would be protected without any guarantee that they'd be able to supply the public with their copyrighted work when their protection elapsed. But there is also the issue that they never really released the source either. It could be argued that they released a derivative work of their own source when they sold copies of the binaries so compelling them to release the source might not be wrong as well as impractical.
Given the long copyright terms we have now and the pace of technology I don't expect this to be that serious of an issue but we really don't seem prepared to handle this.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Revitalizing copyright formalities would help to satisfy both parties. One of the traditional formalities that an applicant for a copyright registration in the US had to fulfill was depositing 'best copies' of his work with the Library of Congress. This not only served as a way for the Library to enlarge its collection inexpensively, but also aided the public by preserving copies of the work, which the public could use.
In the case of computer software, I propose that all people seeking a US copyright for works which include a software portion provide copies of the software in such forms, and with such supplemental material as the Library determines are best in order to preserve the work for posterity, and make the knowledge in the work accessible to at least other persons having a reasonable skill in the art, and which pose no, or the least barrier for people to make any and all lawful uses of that software at any time (such as making adaptations or backups pursuant to 17 USC 117 during the copyright term, or anything at all after the copyright term). This would not make software any more free than it currently is, but would make software less opaque. The non-copyrightable ideas and algorithms and learning that compromise a given program would be more accessible even during the term, furthering the goal of promoting the progress of science, just as pioneering literary techniques may be learned by reading a book, and used freely.
Developers who wished to keep their secrets would, of course, be free to not meet the requirements for copyrightable software. Their public domain works would continue to have secret source code.
I am aware, btw, that this would require that the US withdraw from most of the various copyright treaties. Since no meaningful reform is possible with those treaties in place (such as realistic term lengths), I'm in favor of withdrawal anyway.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It is always useful to remind everyone that the same "evil" intellectual property laws that are used to prosecute pirates also ensure that Linux and GNU software remain free. If you are a free software advocate and you "don't believe in imaginary property", then yuo = rtard.
Stallman didn't say this, but it is also important to point out that piracy actually hurts free software, by making all software effectively free to those willing to steal it. Linux may cost $0, but if Windows also costs $0, then (to some) it's a better deal. If you are a pirate and you regard yourself as a daring Robin Hood-style freedom fighter, then the bad news is that you're actually fighting against freedom, not for it.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
I'd say Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary people to publish copyright software or having special copyrights for special authors is pretty much bogus. He is locked into this world where he thinks that the existence of proprietary software undermines free software and he tries to lock people into it. Let's just say that I decided to go and grab the Linux Kernel, forget that, the whole everything of Linux and have it on a specially locked down PC called "Todd" and I sold those at Walmart. How do you think that would halt the movement of open source Linux in any way? It wouldn't.
Unfortunately for Stallman, the FOSS world seems to have left him behind. The GPL has evolved in use to become a way for developers to promote themselves and is hardly the user centered world that Stallman speaks of. The whole point of having the GPL to stop proprietarinism isn't some act of goodness, but it does support. It's so that GPL authors have a vehicle for cashing in by doling out non-GPL licenses. The public gets the GPL work, but if I wrote some widget that MS wanted to slip into Windows... well, I'd certainly take the check!
This is my sig.
There are two camps using copyright law as protection:
1. Copyright law keeps source code non-proprietary (e.g. GPL)
2. Copyright law keeps source code proprietary, so you have to pay to use the product (e.g. most commercial software)
Now apply a 5 year expiration of copyright:
Result to 1:
The source code is already visible, and nothing protects the code anymore from someone stealing it and making it proprietary, despite the intention of the authors for it to remain non-proprietary.
Result to 2:
The source code is NOT already visible. Lack of copyright protection makes the product free-as-in-beer, but mere expiration of copyright does not force the authors to release the source code. So the result is that no one else can steal the source code like they could for expired FLOSS copyright.
So yes, there IS an imbalance of power. In no way does this help authors preserve the freedom to keep software non-proprietary.
And no, it's NOT just a simple case of each side has a right to keep their code open or closed as they see fit. It favors proprietary software to remain proprietary, but removes protections for software to remain non-proprietary. Stallman is right: the only way to keep it fair is if both sides must make the source code available.
THINK PEOPLE.
Far from it. RMS is the modern John the Baptist. He is an important part of the overall discussion, even if you don't agree with him.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderf
I would shoot everyone that publicly supported it if passed, just because it is an advocacy of compulsory, and therefor, non-free speech. The buck of FOSS stops at the 1st amendment.
This is my sig.
I predict we would actually see far more software emerge as people revisited old software which was no longer supported and made their own, better versions. I'd love to see new takes on software like Hypercard or even OSes like Windows 2000. Since neither are supported anymore, who does it hurt to open them up?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
It would be nice if non-free/open source software was forced to become open source when the proposed 5 year term expired, but even without that:
What harm is there to a project that is GPL?
Consider the following example using mysql. Under the idea of a 5 year copyright, the code that makes up the version released today expires 5 years from now. However, each patch continues to be in copyright from the date it was written. If, in 5 years, someone builds a closed source that includes mysql's now public domain code the product can not include any new features or bug fixes without doing a clean-room reimplementation. This severely limits the over all code's usefulness.
In short, wouldn't it be easier to comply with the License then try to reimplement it all? And if they would rather add things on a 5 year lag, they are going to be behind and probably not be adding much the community would see as being of value.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
Because his "no-compromise" attitude has been proven right for many years. I envy him for being consistent thru all these years. Unfortunately, it is more confortable to live in a grey area, because it gives more benefits in the short term. Even if you think he is wrong, he has been holding his opinion for many years. That fact by itself deserves recognition and respect...
He is the Path, the Truth and the Life
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
\u262D = \u5350
This is just wrong, quite frankly.
Christian EngstrÃm (the pirate party's EU representative) is a free software contributor (using LGPL for his work). Also, the pirate party has mentioned running in the municipal elections, with the main intent to work for the use of free software within governmental adminsitrations.
Also, the tone in the pirate party's platform is quite clear. They are focusing on restrictions caused by copyright, not on copyright as such.
Here it is, translated, for anyone who might be interested:
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.piratpartiet.se%2Fpolitik%2Fupphovsratt&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=
I think Stallman just can't see the forest for all the trees. The pirate party is a huge asset for the progress of free software.
Important stuff
That may be, but on this score, he's right. I think five years is way too short. I feel 25 years is better, but that 50 years would be acceptable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's a list of permissions, that, by default, are not permissable under ordinary copyright law. For any given copyrighted work, you have no right to copy, distribute, modify, reverse engineer, any of it.The GPL only grants permissions that would otherwise be denied.
The GPL is saying you can distribute, you can copy, you can modify, but, in order to be granted these rights, you must also confer them on everyone else, including any derivative works you make.
IOW, GPL is more restrictive than BSD/X11/MIT/PSF (but only in that these licenses more or less waive all the rights while requiring only attribution usually), but less restrictive than copyright by itself..
My blog
I see a lot of comments here saying that Stallman is a zealot, and both he and the GPL are harming software freedoms. Stallman IS a zealot. When something is important, you need somebody who will not back down or negotiate. The GPL is NOT friendly. It is a weapon against those who would steal our freedom, steal our code. Arguments claiming the GPL is bad for freedom sound a lot like arguments saying a standing military is bad for peace. Freedom and peace are both worth fighting for, even if the goal is to end the fighting. I can dream of a day when the GPL could be retired. When public domain works will not be stolen from the public. When proprietary software companies will no longer use their own EULA and patent weapons to devastate the freedoms of competitors, developers, and end-users. Whether such a day will ever come, I don't know. Today though, right now, if you value your freedom to write and use software as you choose, you cannot condemn those who fight for your freedom, nor the weapons they use to ensure it.
A lot of people criticize RMS for scrutinizing every movement related to free software and only free software, but I have to say that other fields could use spokesmen like him. He hasn't tried to "branch out" and talk about other causes he doesn't know much about He sticks to his area of expertise and, as a result, you get nuanced criticisms of positions that might otherwise have unintended consequences.
You don't have to agree with him, of course. That comes down to whether you think copyright should "promote the arts and sciences" as it is written in the constitution and whether the rights of the author/artist/developer to protect their works outweigh the rights of the users.
If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.
I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.
He said his main concern is that they should change the name to the GNU/Pirate Party
How can you force a company to release their source code, sue them? Every single company, no matter how small it is? If you force large companies to release their code, the small ones can get that code and release their own forked versions (change some logos etc.) and sell them 10 times cheaper.
If a company releases a lot of versions of product "foo", this means after five years version 1 was released, they'll have to open up the code. What if they don't have any kind of version control? Or if they delete stuff that's older than two years? Should they give the latest sourcecode for free?
What if the company goes bankrupt, should it release the source after it's gone? After all, you can't force or sue a company that no longer exists to release the code.
Finally, how do you know if the released code is real, or if it's some old buggy obfuscated copy that was used for testing some feature that was abandoned because it never worked?
Wharr be this 'Pirate Party', me mateys?
Stallman like any other producers of copyrighted work is using copyrights to control the distribution (copying) of his work. I think free software is good as long as the code is voluntarily given to the free software pool. After all it is his code that he put his work into, so he has the right to dictate that any copies also come with the option of obtaining the source code. However, those who choose not to participate in this scheme should not be forced to release their software in this way.
It would depend on how the legislation would be implemented. Suppose that a copyright expires after five years in such a way that certain copyright concepts still apply to the work, such as the concept of derived work. Suppose you take a FOSS program whose copyright has expired, and make modifications to it. If this modified program is regarded as derived work of this program, then it inherits the non-copyright status; the modified program is also not copyrighted. Furthermore, any executable code is also a derived work. In this situation, with these rules, the incentive for cannibalizing the free program is greatly reduced, because the executable code cannot be put under a proprietary license which prohibits reverse engineering, modification and copying. This deflates much of the proprietary software model.
I could make the argument that under these rules it's okay to withhold the source code for a modified version (derived work) of a program whose copyright has expired. Everyone has access to the original source code. So what I'm withholding is basically the access to the patches that I developed and applied, except that I'm allowing people to run the compiled program. Those patches are my work, so I have a right to keep them secret. If someone doesn't like that, they are welcome not to use the modified versions of my program and just use the original, to which everyone has the source. I'm not imposing any restrictions on reverse engineering, modifying and re-distribution of my binaries (because, under these rules, I cannot do that). Anyone who wants to make an open source version of program which has exactly the same features as my no-source version can do so, and in so doing may even reverse-engineer my program. This still leaves me with some incentive to make such a program, but that incentive is small and improportion to the engineering effort I have put into it. Anyone willing to put in approximately the same effort can duplicate and compete with what I have done.
Most people who aren't really involved in the issue at all don't understand the difference between RMS free, and "download a copy of MS Office from some website" free. Having them both lumped under "free" does hurt his side of it, due to being associated with people who really only want the ability to download whatever programs they want without paying for them.
Maybe he should rename it to "freedom software" or something, so there's a difference in the names. The alternative is to stop calling the other stuff "free", but that doesn't seem too likely so long as most people don't give a damn about copyright.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
BSD is not an open license as it is too many dead ends. Yes there are tons of commercial applications out there but they are not open as 'under the hood open', its like buying a shiny new car and never being able to work on it. When it stops working you throw it away. Which is why I do not support BSD-style licensing, it is wasteful.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Stallman is supposed to endorse freedom, software freedom particularly. Under this criteria, isn't public domain the most freedom one could hope for?
Freedom goes in both ways. And it includes freedom to release free software or privative software. I don't believe the obbligation to release the code to be so, but only a consecuence of ethical beliefs (or some other reasons.)
I understand his point of view: every software must be free. But what freedom are we talking about? Why would I want to give everyone access to the source code that costed me millions to develop? What would I be forced to do so?
I consider that copyright should last ~20 years. That granted, freedom arrives alone. No one can restrict what I can do with that work. That is what I .
Only when you've found the correct idea you'll speak a lot about nothing and you'd be perfect.
Forcing copyright holders to release source code when the copyright expires doesn't really matter. If there was a really desirable piece of software whose copyright expired, it'd take a day or two for it to be promptly decompiled and thoroughly reverse engineered. Heck, it's not even always necessary for the copyright to have expired for people to do the work.
When your copyright expires, the work enters public domain, but the record that it was previously copyrighted doesn't disappear. This means NO ONE can claim to own the material, and EVERYONE can use it in whatever manner they choose.
There is zero risk of a company trying to take ownership of the code, because a work with an expired copyright, is by definition, owned by all.
This is different from someone releasing a piece of code, never claiming copyright on it, and then some random company stealing it and declaring it proprietary, leaving the actual creator unable to use his own code. THIS is the scenario that the GPL was written to prevent.
The only difference between currently GPLed code and formerly GPLed code with an expired copyright is that once it expires, you now CAN choose to use the code in proprietary software as well. It has zero effect on existing (or new) open source projects already using the code. Yes, it stops the "free" label from being virally attached to the code, and Stallman of course hates that, but that doesn't harm open source, only the Stallman ideology of everything MUST be free, including all variants.
Stallman gives everyone perspective.
He's the the guy you point to and say, "See that guy over there? That guy's the alternative." Makes anything you say seem moderate and rational in comparison.
what Stallman fails to notice is that if there were no copyright law there would be no need to the gpl
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If we have a short copyright (or none at all - that's the way I'd like it) then it is completely legal to publish the source code. Even if the company doesn't do it itself we can be fairly certain that somebody WILL leak it at some point. It's just impossible to keep it secret, especially if leaking the code is basically legal (at most a breach of contract but not a criminal act).
So without copyright we would in the end get source code for everything and we would be able to use it freely for everything. Sounds quite good to me.
Does that make Bill Gates Judas?
Can you count all the spin doctors using this to smear RMS as pushing "His (as in only his) Twisted (yes, ppl are using this word) Version of Free".
Essentially what RMS want us to avoid is a world where computers don't obey their owners.
Imagine a world where everybody can install a 5 years old version of Windows 7 that none the less, refuses to install VLC, puts secret IDs in your MSOffice documents, callbacks the RIAA to request permission every time you launch your Windows Media Player. etc.
And he has no legislative power, he doesn't act thought coercion but rather leads by example. His vocal because people need to be educated about software freedom, just like feminists need to educate people about gender inequality, just like ambientalists needed to educate the public about contamination before people started to demand changes.
But... the future refused to change.
This all might be true...
However, the Pirate Party is going to municipal elections in sweden in 2010 with the intent on changing the use of proprietary software and move to OSS in municipals. Piratpartiet satsar på kommunval Link in swedish.
50 years? While I can possibly see argument (agreement aside) for a 50 year window on copyrighted creative works like Mickey Mouse, I definitely cannot see 50 years as an acceptable window for copyright protection of code. That would mean it would only now allow us to open and use code written in 1949. Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
25 years is way too long for software copyrights. Here's a challenge: name one piece of commercially distributed software that still works *without modification* on modern hardware after 25 years and is still useful in some way.... Bear in mind that 25 years ago, the state of the art included the Apple IIc, the 128k Mac, the IBM PC AT, etc. This was several years before the first personal computer with a paged memory management unit. I've seen modern wristwatches with more powerful CPUs. Apart from arcade game nostalgia and a few legacy financial systems, I think it's safe to say that there is basically nothing of value in code from that far back. Everything of value had to be updated, massively reworked, or rewritten hundreds of times since then to remain useful.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works and to expire after a period of time to enrich the public domain. Copyright durations of 25+ years on software do neither. They don't contribute to the public domain because the software is useless by the time the end of the copyright period is reached, and they don't encourage creation of new software because companies are allowed to rest on their laurels, not creating anything until their copyright runs out or until changes to the underlying OS/hardware force them to update their software to keep selling it.
Remember that, at least in the U.S., derivative works are also protected by copyright, so the version 2.0 can still be protected by copyright after the copyright on version 1.0 expires. There's no benefit to having copyright on older versions of software unless the new versions don't offer enough advantage to be worth buying, in which case they don't deserve protection anyway. I strongly feel the policy should be, "Innovate or die." If you aren't improving the state of technology---if you're just making money off something you created decades ago---then you are no longer contributing to society and don't deserve to be rewarded for your lack of contribution.
Five years after first release is long enough. Ten years is barely acceptable. Twenty-five years is obscene. The current 120 years is outright grand larceny from the public domain.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So true. A few years ago on FOSDEM I saw a speech he gave. I almost wanted to run to the store and buy an full version Windows just to piss him off. (Buy, not install) I found him so arrogant and annoying that everything he said became irrelevant.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Your right, long copyright terms on software are ridiculous because of how quickly it becomes obsolete...
What would make more sense, is a rolling term with requirements... Once you make software available the clock starts, and you must continue making it available on a non discriminate basis under the same or more lenient terms, with the same or greater level of support and for the same price or less (allowing for the official government rate of inflation).
If you stop making something available, then you should be required to release it to the public domain including source code.
I whole heartedly agree with your "innovate or die" approach, not just for technology but for any copyrighted work... Noone should sit on their lazy ass collecting royalties for work they did years ago... How many fucked up musicians do we have who haven't produced any new music in years, but are spending their days fucked out of their minds on drugs paid for by ongoing royalties.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Since source code changes rapidly, new version may be eligible to new copyright status. Let's assume you adopted a 5 year copyright plan. What you are basically saying is that what I have created today will be public domain in 5 years, but the thing that I created based on the same code in 3 years from now will not be public domain for 8 years hence. This "rolling copyright" is exactly what's needed. It gives time for people to enjoy their advantage of creation while allowing the public the rights it should never have lost in the first place.
It's a lead balloon because no one who could enact it will touch it, but it does make sense.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for all your good work on free software.
Now please, for the love of God, shut the fuck up!
Signed, a Linux user.
PS: No, I will not call it "GNULinux"!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
At the bottom of the
Life, liberty, and $something_else
dumbass, that's not in the Constitution. It's in the [Declaration] of Independence.
It's also in amendments V and XIV: "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Nah - it makes him Pontius Pilate. Or Satan. Satan's in the New Testament, right? Also, does this make Linus a modern-day Paul, or is he PenguinJesus?
First off, the copyright of software under the GPL would be new every time something is changed in the code, so the "expiration date" would be perpetually extended.
Secondly, wouldn't a Creative Commons license negate a "5 year expiration" under the same perpetual extension of the "expiration date"?
Therefore, Stallman's remarks are irrelevant (IMHO, as usual).
Just my 2 cents.
Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.
Seriously, are you insane? You're totally ignoring the fact that software is generally created and then incrementally improved through successive release cycles. So, for examle, the linux kernel was initially released in 1991, and so, for argument's sake, let's say development began in 1990. Since then, it's been under continual development, and would now be in its 19th year. So by your logic, the current version would have a 38 year copyright protection. Next year, it would be up to 40. You see where I'm going with this? By 2040, the then current version would have 100 years of copyright protection.
Not only would that make the system seriously overly complex, making it virtually impossible to know when anything enters the public domain, it would end up being worse than the current system!
In reality, the ideal copyright system would have a fixed term from the date of publication, unlike the current system of life + 50 or 70 years (depending on country), so that calculating when a work enters the public domain is easy if you know the date of publication, without having to know when the author has or will die.
5 years is way too short. It shifts the balance too far in the wrong direction. It's even shorter than the original term of 14 (or 28) years. There are a significant number of works that are still worthy of protection after that short period. between 25 and 50 years is more reasonable. Beyond that, the law of diminishing returns really kicks in and the public loses out in favour of the extremely small minority, only serving to fill the pockets of the big media industry, just like in the current system.
Eric Flint argued for a 40 to 42 year term, and I think that's just about right.
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos3
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
Ok, so the Public Domain isn't FREE Stallman? Clearly you're a total nut job Stallman!
Yes, you'd lose your base for enforcing the GPL with a five year copyright limit. Then the software would be free from your onerous restrictions that you've imposed upon it.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
It's interesting that truly free licenses based upon Copyright such as the BSD variants of licenses (BSD, ISC, MIT, Apache, ...) wouldn't really be affected as they pretty much rely upon the good nature of the vast majority of people to share rather than forcing rules upon all just because a few might not want to share.
Public Domain is MORE FREE in every way than the GPL!
Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection.
I'm not a fan of popular what-passes-for-music either, but even I'm willing to give them more than two weeks of copyright protection.
There is a whole lot of philosophical circle-jerkery going on here to rationalize a very simple position -- Stallman doesn't like the Pirate Party because piracy makes F/OSS software comparatively less attractive than commercial software. That is to say, the major competition among the tech-savvy is not $200 Windows vs. $0 Linux it's between $0 Windows vs. $0 Linux.
Stallman would like nothing more than for Windows (& all other commercial software) to have a 100% foolproof antipiracy scheme out of nothing more than simple free-market economics.
We discussed this to death: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1933254
Reading that, it makes a lot more sense that RMS was arguing
> The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share.
That makes FAR more difference than the line from the summary, which gets things all wrong:
> a point that many anti-copyright proponents don't realize â" the GPL itself is a copyright license that relies on copyright law to protect access to source code
No, we really do realize that. We just want to find other ways to deal with the problem. See also this (and note who wrote it). That said, he is correctly described as a purist. In other words, you either agree with him, or he'll say you're wrong. There's no convincing him of anything that I've seen.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
The entire foundation of the pirate party is about removal of restrictions, not imposition of them.
This particular issue is simply not something they were focused on, and thus had not provided a public position.
The suggestion provided sounds like something they would gladly adopt into any reforms they push to assure "public domain" remains public.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
How about this:
If you give out a binary, if I manage to decompile it, *I* own the copyright on that source, NOT the one who owns the "copyright" on the binary.
You still have a copyright on your code you didn't want to give out, but because *I* paid the work to decompile, I should get some advantage, yes?
Software's lifespan is amazingly short from one version to the next, and each version is in and of itself separately copyrighted.
even 5 years is too long given this.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Try reading the article next time, particularly the part about how you can't modify proprietary software binaries, thus proprietors benefit by continued secrecy where those who have always published complete corresponding source code get to watch their work become contributions to proprietors. This, in turn, pushes more hackers to wonder why they should contribute to proprietors as if they were charities and decide to publish only proprietary programs.
We need a copyright policy that divulges the complete corresponding source code of proprietary software upon entry into the public domain. Stallman has proposed a way to do that.
Digital Citizen
If Copyright Law protects the GPL then wouldn't after X amount of years GPL code become public domain?
For those interested, the very astute original writeup of the referenced slashodt article was taken down, but is still available here on wayback
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Yeah, I'll concede the suggestion was ill-conceived and spur-of-the-moment. I was actually mainly intending to voice that 50 years, or even 25, is a ridiculous amount of time to protect software code.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
This is my view too.
Having said that, I still broadly support the Pirate Party's aims, and am glad of their existence. The point is, there's never going to be 5 year copyright terms; too many people oppose it, and it's unlikely that the Party will become Government. But it's good to have someone lobbying for short terms, to counteract the excessive ever-increasing terms lobbyed for by the corporations.
It's the same old political tactic - always lobby for more than what you want, so that there is more chance of getting something you actually want.
(Personally I think that the whole "compromise" argument is very bad, for all sorts of reasons, including that it encourages and rewards people for taking extremist positions, but given that this is how things work, you might as well play the system. Because that's what people on the opposing side are doing.)
I think a large amount of people are against perpetual copyright, not copyright itself. Of course you should be able to monetize your creative work for a while. No Worries there.
But culture shouldn't be locked away forever. Life of the Author + 75 years (~100-150ish) is about SIX GENERATIONS. Think about that.
You're a federal criminal whenever you sing Happy Birthday without paying up until the year 2030. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
That's Nuts. Lets keep it to one generation, oh, say.... 28 years or so?
-Tony
I remain unconvinced that non-free software should be eligible for copyright without registering complete corresponding source code with the government upon publication of the proprietary binary. Thus said source code can be released when the program enters the public domain upon copyright expiration. If it turns out that the escrowed source code can't be compiled to produce the released binary that's fraud and the former copyright holder is liable to lose in court in multiple ways: one for the fraudulent escrowed source code and with each litigation from defendants suing to get back their money from suffering the effect of unjustifiably losing copyright infringement cases (the proprietor never had a legitimate copyright, so the defendant should not have lost).
The key to Stallman's essay (which builds on his discussion of this topic dating back to at least 2007 where he gave a talk in Sweden and raised this problem) isn't really about the term of copyright, a subject which seems to be occupying much of the remarkably narrow /. discussion. And talking about "really old versions" doesn't address the inequity Stallman raises, so you're not quite getting the point either. The key to Stallman's essay here is about treating former copyright holders fairly under the new copyright regime by recognizing that proprietors need to contribute to society too. If proprietors benefit from continuing to hoard what they should have published (proprietary software) while others contribute far more to society by publishing something people can build upon (free software) the new copyright regime is biased toward proprietors and should be fixed.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy. I watched a Google talk where he responded to someone who asked about this inequity but his response (about 50 minutes into the recording) did not actually address the problem and the questioner didn't seem to see how Falkvinge dodged the question:
So, response #1 is essentially that increasing the PD means more than treating those who benefit society fairly. This is ridiculous and unconscionable but (as Stallman points out) fixable. Response #2 is that he believes state purchasing decisions will counteract the fact that proprietors will be able to incorporate copylefted free software into their programs while contributing nothing, not even their own software's source code. If proprietors "aren't doing society any favors at all" then they should not benefit as Falkvinge acknowledges they would. I fail to see how Falkvinge's response here is in any way
Digital Citizen
I had the same feeling after seeing him at FOSDEM. He is kinda obnoxious, and yes, arrogant. But on the other hand, the more I think about his ideas the more I like them (the ideas). It's just that I find him a little too aggressive. But of course that's why I am not a top FSF activist. The same way, I like and agree with most of Dawkins ideas. In some situations I found him a little too agressive.
Linus is John the Evangelist, hacking away on Patmos.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Fortunately, I've only gotten the Funny mods I was going for. You do have a good point about copyright for software, though. Technology changes quite rapidly, whereas art and music frequently remains popular and important for decades, or in rare cases even centuries. I'm not sure if there would ever be separate copyright terms for different types of work, but I think a "readily available" rule would be a great help. If you can't walk into a local store and buy a new CD, or even download a song from the publisher or some other online service, the copyright holder obviously isn't making money from the work anymore, and it should immediately pass into the public domain. Software may be a bit trickier, since you could have new versions of a program still using code from a 20-year-old version, or maybe a new version that doesn't use any of the code from the previous version, but a similar "readily available" rule could still be created for software.
Wow, I got a Troll for this? Ha. Moderation fail. :P
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
I think there might be a better way to "have it both ways".
One of the major points of the GPL is that it treats software as a grouping of binary and source code. That unit is what everyone has a Right to, not only a part of it. What if copyright began to protect the Public Domain? Software vendors could be required to release all of their source code when a program became Public Domain. If a company in question denied a user request for this source or provided incomplete or crippled source, they could, as a penalty, lose their rights to enforce copyrights at all for a year or indefinitely.
Once the software and source code were Public Domain, there would also be a great incentive for employees to release it against the interests or demands of the company. If some business was going to pay you a consulting fee to patch some software in the Public Domain, would you have any reservations about doing so and taking the money?
The escrow thing is still probably a better idea, but that would be impossible without formalities. This is just another reason why the copyright lobby is ripping off the The People (you know, the ones mentioned in the Constitution of the US).
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
This kind of thinking is stopping us nerds from being rich. We could have had it, the money the cars the women, but instead we gave it all away. We could have been the next doctors and lawyers, highly trained highly paid, and exclusive... instead we made the courses too easy that anyone can do stumble their way around it and get an 'IT-degree'. We made computers too easy that a 13 year old can do what we could have been paid to do. We are making things free when we could have earned so much money from those. We need to roll back, make courses harder so that only the true nerds can pass them. Make software hard and complicated so only the true nerds can use them and thus only nerds can have the jobs that they deserve to have (instead of joe jock who spent a 2 week course learning it because nerds are making the program so easy and thus costing other nerds their jobs). Make software expensive so nerds get more money and become richer! WE GOT IT ALL WRONG!
. . . sooo, what exactly is your job at Microsoft?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
> Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it.
And where's your proof that piracy killed it? Just because you know people who pirated it? (And are you admitting to piracy there? Per your statement, in order to not be a pirate, you're either not an RPG enthusiast in spite of knowing all about the game, or you don't know yourself.)
That aside, I've never played it and I would call myself an RPG enthusiast (yes, I know all about it, from your friend Mort to the effects the story may have on the Nameless One's identity in spite of having never once actually played the damn thing). And how many of those who played it did so when it actually came out? (As opposed to years after the company making it died)?
And, frankly, there are tons of much-loved games that are cult classics precisely because they cater to a very small market. Some RPGs are indeed much-loved, even if they've never sold well. Are you going to claim to me that Earthbound didn't sell well due to piracy? I dare say it has more hard-core fans than Planescape: Torment ever did, in spite of the accolades.
(Yes, there were SNES copiers and such even back in the day, but it was off the market well before the days when every idiot could figure out how to load a ROM into zSNES.)
why not just put a longer term limit on commercial uses?
For instance, 5 (or whatever) years before unrestricted access for personal/public uses, and 15 (or whatever) years before unrestricted commercial use?
Not commercial, but TeX has been used almost unmodified since 1986.
Stallman's stick is the threat of legal action for violations of the GPL. It's not a very well funded stick, so it's more like a soggy carrot that's been in the refrigerator too long, with a bit of masking tape down one side, and the word "stick" written thereupon with a sharpie. Be that as it may, it's still a theoretical stick. A serious GPL violation might inspire some well funded GPL fans to wrest the soggy carrot from Stallman's hands (both being firmly upon it at all times), bronze it, and hand it back, in more robust stick-like form.
Stallman's carrots, include the contribution of an open source (not free) compiler to the world -- a truly wonderful thing in many ways. The intellectual contribution of the viral/sticky (no pun intended) GPL approach to free software code licensing and sharing is even greater. I admire both contributions, and both contributions were noble, and selfless.
However, the flip side of this coin is that the Stallman GPL approach denies the value (and attempts to undermine with virility and stickiness) a model which has proven to be valuable to many people and organizations -- the truly free and entirely unencumbered BSD style software licensing model. The GNU toolchain, largely because it wasn't really free (as in speech, love, and BSD) and because people didn't really quite understand that, sucked all the air out of the room, essentially killed the compiler industry, and stifled compiler innovation, for roughly twenty years. This, too, is a valid perspective. Both can be (and happen to be) true at the same time, about the same thing.
Your criticism of Apple is odd. Apple contributes in dramatic and substantial ways to free software. WebKit is rescuing the standards-based internet from almost certain doom. Please don't try to claim that Mozilla saved it, you'll be laughed out of the room. If it wasn't for the sudden competitive pressure from WebKit, Firefox still wouldn't pass the Acid 2 test suite.
Ever hear of LLVM? Got any idea how many full time Apple developers contribute to LLVM related projects? (Oodles.) It's going to liberate the BSD team from the tyranny of GCC. You'll thank 'em, later.
Oh, I suppose you probably know this stuff already, since this claim that Apple exploits free software unfairly has been debunked at Slashdot probably hundreds of times in the past few years by people with direct knowledge of Apple's contributions to open source teams. I saw one recent post which listed over a dozen significant projects to which Apple has made major contributions, many of which directly benefited the BSD team.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
he's an obese, unhygienic nutcase who has plenty of free time because he is unable to get a real job.
Copyright law in its current state is entirely unreasonable. We would literally be better off not having copyright law than the copyright law we currently have. *That* is the main point of the pirate party.
We can't reform copyright law with all the deep pocketed special interests that are still around.
If we can't reform it, the only solution is to destroy it entirely. Then we can build something reasonable starting with a clean slate.
Alternatively, we can view this as a negotiation. If we start with the position that we need to reform copyright law, then the copyright lobby will respond by asking for stronger copyright law. The net result will be no change, which is a win for the copyright lobby. If we instead ask for a complete repeal of copyright law, then the copyright lobby will be forced to defend the status quo, and we will have some chance of achieving our goal of copyright reform.
It's you, piece of idiot comunist, who hurts free software
This is ultimately not a surprise. Not knocking the guy, but it's his way or the highway, and the only aspect of copyright law he seems to think is important is his particular take of Free Software.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
Seriously... what the hell?!?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Why not just use EULA's instead of copyright to enforce GPL?
Well there's that and there's no such thing as a "free market".
"Technically, it enforces a different set of freedoms. Whether or not this trade-off is OK with you is the decision you need to take when you choose a license for the code you've written."
I keep it straight this way.
The BSD is about the freedom of ideas embodied in code.
The GPL is about the freedom of code embodied in a license.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Eh, having worked in the game industry.... I've found that 'piracy killed our product' is really a cover for 'we don't understand the market well enough, so we will blame something concrete'.
So, did you work at Gamestop or were you a tester for one summer? Because either way your opinion is worthless.
Lurk moar.
When you torrent any copyright, it is most definitely for your profit. Of all the movies, software and music you have obtained, can you honestly say that you would never had rented or purchased even one? Then you have profited by your act. That $1, $5 or $100 is still available for your personal use elsewhere, use you would not have had if you had paid for that item. Simple accounting 101 - Profit = Income - Expenditure. Lower expenditure = greater profit.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
... or he reveals just how irrational your views truly are.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I've long been a proponent of "no copyright without source code."
Copyright exists with the idea that eventually, everything will be public. If you never intend to make the source code public, you should get no copyright protection.
Ideally, this would follow every step of the chain- and if poor record-keeping is your folly, there's no reason for society to reward you with extra rights for it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If they don't provide the source code, then they don't get copyright protection. You don't need to sue them, they just can't sue anybody else for distributing their software. ("This guy's been selling bootleg copies of my program!" "I was selling copies of his program on June 10th. At that time, there was no source code available." -- either the company releases source code or they can't sue the guy. Yes, the company could claim source code was available, but that's just ordinary lying in court and can't be held against a law)
this is pretty much the same way the GPL works, but in reverse.
The GPL says "if you violate the GPL, go right ahead, but if you do, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software, so you'd be violating copyright."
Copyright law COULD say "If you don't want to distribute the source code, go right ahead, but nothing else gives you the right to deny others the right to distribute the software, so you wouldn't get any protection from copyright"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If source released in 5 years, we (and the win die hards) would have access to Windows XP source code now and thousands of "XP" versions would exist. In fact, they could easily fix quirks which MS would never fix and make Windows 7 something nobody would care about.
5 years is way too early. I mean I wish it was but the reality is really different.
Being paranoid doesn't mean... Hell man, MS-DOS was based on Quick and Dirty OS which itself is a horrible thievery of CP/M. Some guy basically sits down, reads all the specs of CP/M and implements them in his own way, one by one.
It started World's largest software company which also happens to be a monopoly. Perhaps, that single thievery has set back IT industry 10-15 years based on their first, real OS namely OS/2 and Windows NT.
Windows GUI is also some kind of Mac OS clone but anyway, it is a matter of past now. They actually have agreement not to bring up that issue anymore you know.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
In a country without laws, everybody would be free to do as they like. Until the slave traders with bigger guns come along. Complete absence of restrictions is not necessarily desirable or what we mean by "freedom". The best kind of freedom IMHO is "do as you like but don't take anyone else's freedom away". This is what the GPL tries to achieve: a minimal set of restrictions designed to keep you from restricting how others use the code. This maximizes overall freedom. The public domain provides no such protection.
Change abolishment of copyright to abolishment of copyright for personal use and you're there.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
BSD gives unto the world its gift to improve the world and that improved world is its reward.
GPL shares with the world but in turn asks the world shares with them, that together we improve the world.
The GPL is like the marshall plan. In return for billions in aid from the US, EU nations could rebuild their economy in exchange for trade and within a decade the economies recovered and all prospored.
BSD is the billions pumped into africa where millions are still starving and the same wars are still being fought.
GPL is about working together, BSD is about charity. If all people where nice, BSD would be great but in the real world, GPL is the more succesfull licensing deal. Just take a long hard look at OSX. How much of a full loaded OSX server or desktop is closed source/BSD/GPL?
So, yes, you are right, some people release under BSD because that allows them to reach more people. But if you want to get somewhere, GPL is the way to go.
Proof me wrong, show me a BSD browser or other practical tool. Show me the countless people keeping the various BSD release up to spec for drivers.
BSD -> Core techs that drive the underlying OS
GPL -> Tools and drivers where someone doesn't want someone else to take their hard work and just use it without return the favor.
BSD is for finished things, GPL is for stuff that still grow.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is complete flamebait if I've ever seen it. Shieldw0lf is a known slashdot troll. Shieldw0lf, I am still watching you.
I have yet to hear Rickard Falkvinge adequately address this inequity in his planned copyright policy.
It is RMS that wants GPL to be get special treatment, not the other way around. If you want to release source code, it should fall under the same copyright laws as everything else.
If the copyright laws gets weaker, this directly hurts GPL, because GPL heavily relies on the current strict copyright laws to maintain its full power. If you want a strong GPL, you should be a copyright proponent. It is that simple. Copyright and GPL go hand in hand.
The pirate party doesn't believe in forcing anyone to make stuff public. But once something is public, the party believes that the public should have certain rights to it. Independent of the type of copyrighted material, be it source code or binary code.
Without copyright, you can modify proprietary software binaries. There's nothing stopping you from doing it. Sure it's not as easy as modifying source, but it can be done. Or you can use the binary to reverse engineer an algorithm or data format and write an open source version of the software. RMS' focus on EULA's is confusing the issues at hand. Any consistent anti-copyright, pro-free-software position does not recognize "EULAs" (which, despite the name, are not agreements but one-sided proclamations) as valid. No free court system in a society without copyrights would respect one-sided "EULAs". Stallman's proposal is not "freedom". He uses the term "free", but as he admits he relies on using un-free restrictions to promote a certain degree of freedom. This is very clever and copyleft is very important in a society in which copyright exists. The value in copyleft is that it is a protection from copyright. Thus without copyright there is no need for copyleft. Supporting copyright because without it copyleft cannot exist is hypocritical and reveals that one really has no interest in freedom at all.
No. The changes made in the past year would get a year's protection. The changes made in 1990 would have been protected from 1990 to, say, 1991. Lines of code are separable.
You don't think Adobe Photoshop 1.0 gets its copyright protection reset to "begin countdown" every time a new CS version comes out, do you?
I structured that last sentence incorrectly. It should have been
Copyright- indeed, all "intellectual property", a oxymoron at best - is bad. Period.
No surprise Stallman supports copyright. He'd lop off your left nut for violating HIS "morality", like any other fanatic.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Most of what you said is non-sequitur but here you touch on a cogent response. Falkvinge's proposal adversely affects all copyleft licenses when compared to any proprietary license. RMS talks about the inequity in terms of how it affects the GPL but he's not requesting any special treatment for the GPL. His favored proposal (escrowing source code) would apply to any program under copyright. I don't know what part of "I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code." you missed, but that seems quite clear to me. If RMS is asking for anything special it's for all free software, not GPL'd software.
Digital Citizen
Modifying binaries is so difficult that virtually nobody does it. You're arguing a corner case at best. And one cannot have freedoms without restrictions because some freedoms conflict. Copyleft is a mechanism that protects for derivative works the freedoms one gets with the copyrighted work, the very freedoms you're eschewing.
Digital Citizen
BSD licensed code directly benefits directly from a 5 year copyright as it would get access to GPL:ed code after 5 years, while losing little to nothing. GPL code loses its source code protection after 5 years, with little to no gain. Closed software loses its binary protection after five years, with little to no gain. (and thanks to RMS there will most likely be an anti time bomb clause in the next party program version)
The RMS suggestion would effectivly aim to remove any disadvantage that GPL:ed code suffers by basically forcing GPL into law. And further punish closed software by having them reveal source code in addition to the binary code becoming free.
While it is definitly possible, I am not sure I like the consequences of forcing someone to reveal source code. It has too many bad implications with it.
Just like the goal of copyright shouldn't be to protect profits for Disney, it shouldn't exist to protect free software. I think we need something (under 15 years) to protect innovation in some high overhead industries (film) and decriminalize non-commercial uses. If that hurts free software somehow (I doubt it really will...) then it does... but copyright isn't around to further open source.
Many people modify binaries. There is a whole community of people who modify binaries to remove restrictions placed on the binaries and allow those binaries to be more widely used. There are also communities of people who modify binary console games to create their own games from them, or to change various features of the game. That "virtually nobody" modifies binaries is false. Maybe you do not have the knowledge to do so yourself, but there are many people with both the knowledge and the inclination. To these people, modifying binaries can fun, enlightening, and fulfilling.
Second, you think "freedoms conflict"? You're going to have to give at least one example of conflicting freedoms if you want to be believed. And no, copyleft does not provide such an example. Copyleft is the use of force to prevent someone from modifying code or using code in certain ways and then distributing only a binary derived from that code without the modified source.
There are circumstances in which copyleft, or something like it, can be seen as valid. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft uses GPL code in certain of their software products. Microsoft also releases a lot of software with restrictive copyrights. Because of this fact, an author of free software is justified in enforcing restrictions against Microsoft, in forbidding Microsoft certain uses of his free software code, etc. Copyleft is in this sense self-defense and defense of other; in this case the use of copyleft against Microsoft is justice. This is much the same as when one catches a thief stealing from one's house, one has the right to take what the thief stole, and even more than what the thief stole (whether it be in the form of making the thief pay 2x or 3x or making the thief serve jail time or some other form of punishment).
The point is that it is consistent with freedom to impose restrictions on aggressors, but it is not consistent with freedom to use force to control the behavior of those who have not aggressed against you. Copyleft, at least in its most common forms (e.g. GPL) imposes restrictions on everyone, and in this way it is not just and is actually anti-freedom.
You might say that it only really imposes a restriction on those who would modify the code and distribute a binary derivation under a restrictive license. But it is possible for one to distribute binaries without copyrighting them and without trying to enforce any restrictions with regard to how people use those binaries. The degree of practical difficulty of doing so is irrelevant to the question of freedom. Everyone has the right not to publish the products of his own mind; but when they are published, he has no right to control how others use his ideas.
Freedoms do not conflict.
While I wouldn't frame that as "closed" as I'm not an advocate of the open source movement, I don't understand how any proprietor stands to gain little or nothing from having unhindered access to the wealth of free and open source software out there. Nor do I understand what the parenthetical remark means; clauses in any copyright license would be unenforcible via copyright law when that program goes into the public domain. We can already see proprietary programs with time bombs; programs that are written to behave radically differently depending on when the program is run. Some very expensive commercial proprietary programs rely on such schemes to compel their users to pay for a later version of the same proprietary program (SPSS, for instance; fortunately in this case hackers are working on a free replacement called PSPP).
Digital Citizen
--Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.--
Yes, they do, if they want to sell it to the public, and if they don't, we'll just ask some of the execs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
Now, the auto makers might not have to release every thing, but I believe drug companies do. Still the oversight is there. Software companies do what they want like stealing gpl. How would you know? The gpl people probably don't have as many people checking for piracy as Microsoft alone does.