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!
What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.
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.
Do you really want releasing software to become a process for which you have to register and do paperwork with the government at every release?
Honestly, I don't know how any of this is considered "Free" (as in Papers, please.).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
> Isn't Stallman the one who insists that open source software is inevitably better,
No, you have Stallman confused with open source evangelists. Stallman has always maintained that whether or not free software is "better" is irrelevant; that its being freer is which matters.
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.
This actually makes a lot of sense.
In the original purpose of copyright law - books and other written material - there is no source code other than the thing that is distributed.
In a sense, companies like MS use copyright not to be a sole distributer of the copyrighted material (the source code), but to prevent all distribution of said material. By withholding the "manuscript", we ("the people") are granting a temporary monopoly on something we don't even really know what it is.
Computer programs are quite different from the creative works copyright was intended for, and also quite different from the "machines" and "inventions" patents were intended for. By trying to apply legislation to something quite different than what it was meant for we are creating a lot of problems, including overly broad patents, copyright monopoly on something that isn't distributed at all, unclear definition of derivative work in the face of bundling, linking, and reverse engineering, etc. etc..
Instead of limiting copyright to X years (possibly a very good idea for books, songs etc.), I think we need to think of a way to protect software makers from abuse of the fruits of his/her labour, while giving "the people" something substantive in return for the monopoly, the policing, etc.
This solution could include registering source code but it might be better to protect a "program" or "solution" than to try to protect source code as if it is some kind of literary work, and then extend that to the compiled version of that source code
I like this idea too. Copyright was originally conceived of as a balance. People agree to give up their right to copy in exchange for the hopeful encouragement of publishing companies to publish and authors to write.
People who want copyright on their software should have to give something up to get it. There must be a balance for taking away people's right to copy.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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'.
Thus I tend to take management saying that as they are so out of touch with the actual marketplace that they lead the company into it's own black hole but do not want any blame associated with them and thus hurt their chances of moving on to other companies to ruin.
> Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth... Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits.
And what an original, devastating insight.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
While Stallman is a zealot, I think you need to re-read his statement, because it's an entirely reasonable explanation of how free/open source software would be affected by a short copyright term. Essentially open source code would be forced into the public domain, while closed source software would not.
Plus, if you follow his argument, reducing the copyright term would actually increase the use of DRM in closed source software.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
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.
Maybe you should read what he actually wrote. His argument is very tempered and coherent. I believe the heart of it comes down to this sentence
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users. As soon as a song falls into the public domain (whether 5 years or 100 years) the actual work is out there for others to use, copy, modify, whatever. But with proprietary software, the copyrighted material is kept closed and secret. The thing the users have is a compiled version that can't easily (or sometimes at all) be used in another project or modified or learned from, even once it's in the public domain.
With insanely long copyright terms, proprietary software is protected by the fact that you don't have access to their source code and the law; whereas free software is only protected by the law. Once you take away the force of law after 5 years, proprietary software is still protected by the secrecy, and free software is completely unprotected.
Now if you want to get into a holy war over the GPL vs. BSD, fine, but that's a separate argument. If you care at all about the GPL, then RMSs point about the Pirate Party's goal makes a whole lot of sense.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
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
Unfortunately, while I like the spirit of your idea, I think it is misguided due to the unfortunate consequences such a law would bring. With your proposal, any work not submitted in full to the copyright office would not be given copyright protections. With dynamic works such as software, this would be a disaster! It would require that either all changes to GPL works are first processed by the copyright office, or worse, those works fall into the public domain! It would kill all open source licenses and open source development. Even if applied to non-software works, this could arguably affect art that is dynamic in form, such as some installations.
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
As long as breaking DRM and decompiling binaries isn't illegal, I'm fine with that.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
Yep, especially on Slashdot. Criticizing RMS on slashdot is not exactly an example of pioneering courage.
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.
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 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.
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users.
That isn't correct. Other stuff has "source" in one form or another too. Books have their TeX/Quark/Framemarker/PDF/... source, music has unmixed tracks, images exist in some uncompressed and unresized RAW version somewhere or Photoshop files, movies have tons of material that never made it into the final result. And all of those would be extremely valuable for making derived works. There really isn't a clear cut between software and other stuff, especially when considering that a binary isn't all that uneditable either, as can be seen in numerous cracks, hacks and mods out there, it sure would be easier with real source code, but assembler is quite modifiable as well, just harder.
I think a law that requires source code would be awful, it might look nice from far away, but it would add a ton of bureaucracy and cost to anything that is created. It would also be very hard to specify source code in a way that is completly unambiguous. Should people get sued because they have compressed Javascript in their webpage and lost the source code of that specific version? I don't think so.
The real answer to this mess should simply be to purge EULAs from the face of the earth.
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.
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.
You're posting AC and calling me out on trolling?
A troll wouldn't praise Stallman for positive contributions. A troll wouldn't say that Stallman is correct in this specific instance (which he is).
I've made level-headed logical statements. I haven't made personal attacks at any posters here. And I haven't responded to bait to incite arguments.
Where is there any indication here that I'm trolling?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.