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."
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
DRM is a way for companies to control the behavior of users after they've bought the product. It's a way to lease things to people rather than sell them. It's a crime that companies are allowed to 'sell' you DRM things. It's a lease. You don't own it.
Stallman is completely correct in calling DRM evil. Witness Amazon forcing people to return their books when the fact that they 'own' them is inconvenient for Amazon.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition?
You are probably thinking of discredited neocon kook Eric S Raymond.
Stallman says you should use "free software" for ideological reasons even if it is inferior.
I believe you are exactly backwards. DRM is about limiting the user. The GPL is about freedom for the _user_. As is pointed out ad nauseum every time a GPL story shows up on slashdot, the restrictions only apply on distribution of binaries.
... what was it, scp and grep? to make the flag for directory recursion lowercase r, because I couldn't be bothered to keep track of what used -R instead. Now, say Apple doesn't release the source for Darwin. It's BSD licensed, of course, so they don't have to. Then, to keep everyone tied into the Apple experience, they implement some kind of hash check before anything gets executed (sounds like DRM), so even if I reverse-engineer and compile my own binaries, I can't run them.
Simple example: Once upon a time, in my linux n00b days, thanks to the GPL, I used to change the source of
One way, I, the user, can do what I want. The other way, I can't do anything I want, despite that they are both open source. It's not that hard.
That said, I generally agree with you about RMS. I believe his difficulty is that he has valid practical considerations that, when stated in legalese or abstract ethical notions, sound crazy. Then, his unflinching, uncompromising nature drives him into the fringe.
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.
As a customer you might get into a position where you can only get binaries. However, that is only a problem for GPL-type licenses, not for BSD-type licenses.
This makes no sense. If there's no copyright there are no (enforceable) software licenses.
Also, I disagree with his premise; the source code would get out, if the penalties for releasing it were to vanish.
Even if we abolished copyright, we'd still have trade secret law so there would still be penalties for releasing source code.
Think again.
Almost everybody I know that has played Planescape: Torment only ever managed to play it after Black Isle was shut down, having never heard about it before. Personally, I played it when it came out, but I remember friends who had a hard time finding copies to purchase when it was being made, let alone afterward. Strike it up to bad luck if you'd like, but, in my own experience, the game was neither marketed well nor distributed effectively to its target market, and that's why it didn't do better.
Also, it was NOT a commercial failure. The game managed to turn a profit, which is something most games never do. (Admittedly, the link is talking about significant profits, not whether they make a profit at all, but I'm willing to bet that, looking at the situation realistically, less than 50% of games actually manage to break even)
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that all source was freely available in the early days of computers. If was only company greed, theft and paranoia that started closing it off.
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
Thank you for recognizing this.
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.
I disagree with the first sentence, while the rest is certainly true. Stallman only has cookies (the GNU toolchain, the GPL), he does not have a beating stick. He is not forcing anyone to do anything. He is not forcing anyone to even listen to him. You can write software and license it under whatever the hell you want, Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful. You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team. Stallman is not it.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions.
You have to listen to the arguments before you rebut them. Free software owes its freedom solely to copying restrictions enforced via copyright law. The sense in which Stallman uses the word "free" has been the same for more than 20 years.
In reality, he wants to remove rights,
No, the copyright law does that. It removes all rights and GPL gives most of them back to the user. Few licenses out there are less restrictive than GPL.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
I don't think you understand the purpose of DRM. Put simply, it is similar to that of a gigantic black dildo with sharp metal spikes. Very different from GPL, which is more like a cute pink bunny that burps gold and shits rainbows.
In conclusion, Stallman is right again and we are all very lucky to have him around.
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
Freedom for software the way Stallman means it. (From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
If you ever understood why Richard Stallman takes exactly the stance he takes, you would never make so a silly statement.
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
So Richard Stallman sought a way to make such a code grap impossible by design - by inventing a license that removes all your rights to all the code you were given the moment you try to shield it from other people.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
If you because of your limited experience don't see the point, it's not Richard Stallman's fault.
WRONG. No company stole his code. Stop making shit up and then accusing others of being of 'limited experience'. Good job on gaming Slashdot to get +4 insightful though. It's so easy, just write what they want to hear. The real reason Stallman did what he did: From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs queued. These features facilitated smooth operation. Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often went for an hour without being fixed. The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program. Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.
This space for rent.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Actually, what I said was "assuming you are not just trolling on behalf of Microsoft" I would like a response. In other words, if you are simply trolling, don't bother. Thanks for giving me one.
How is he striving to extend his political influence? By advocating free software? There is a pretty long list of parties who are exerting real influence on politicians. Stallman is simply doing what every company does when they bring a product to market. If you honestly believe that Steve Ballmer wouldn't like every computer to run Windows, and isn't striving to extend his political influence to achieve that goal, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"Growing list of restriction?" A quick glance at the "What is free software?" page covers the same ground it always has, as far as I can tell. I won't recite the four software freedoms, but they are the only "restrictions" I know of that bind developers who license their software under the GPL. What do you mean by a "growing list?" Can you provide more information please?
Neither is the GPL. It enumerates the qualities that the FSF believes software (or more accurately its license) must possess for them to consider it "free." It's no different than me saying without self-determination I am not free. If you want to see that as me placing a "restriction on freedom" that's your business, but I don't see how you can define something without identifying the qualities it possesses.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that. Let me give you my take:
He wants to extend rights, define the qualities that make software free and do so to protect the interest of users, protecting them from being subjected to the will of developers. At least that's what I get from "the freedom to run the program, to study how it works, to share it with others and to make improvements to it." (sorry, I know I said I wouldn't recite the list, but I felt it was necessary to make my point).
You are most certainly entitled to disagree with Stallman, to think the GPL is BS and to voice your opinion to anyone who will listen. I'm not questioning that. But you haven't done much to convince me Stallman is restricting anyone's rights. If you write code, don't license it under the GPL if it offends you. If you simply use software, then you can happily ignore the GPL altogether, since (unlike every EULA I've ever read) it places no restrictions on the user.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The source code is an "unpublished work", not necessarily a trade secret.
Abuse of trade secret laws is a separate issue; offering something to the public and yet claiming the same something is a legally protected "trade secret" makes no sense and shouldn't be legally possible. If you want to have trade secret protection, you should actually have to make an attempt to keep it a secret -- offering it for $50, $500, or even $50,000 to all comers isn't doing so.
Here in the United States, it sure does.
Please practice reading comprehension. The ongoing development cost would be made up by fees for ongoing support and services. He said that very clearly, and for you to blatantly ignore it suggests that you have your own agenda.
Sam ty sig.
Not commercial, but TeX has been used almost unmodified since 1986.
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.
BSD vs GPL
Or would you disagree that BSD is free? BSD licensing is closer to how code would become if the Pirate party succeeds. Private business can then take freely contributed code (after 5 years) and then wrap it in a private product and sell it for money. This is something RMS vehemently opposes hence his creation of GPL which requires all derivative works made from GPL licensed goods be forced to use GPL and the source be made publicly available if they want to distribute it.
RMS and GNU need copyright law to continue as they are, BSD does not as they freely hand their code away with virtually no strings attached today.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.