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."

Comments

Correction

[Jack9]

Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software

FTFY

Re:Correction

[bonch]

Any GPL code would lose its protected status, which would apply to most of the free software you use. The whole point of the GPL is to give users access to source indefinitely, and that's why it's amusing when Slashdot's readership adopts all these anti-copyright positions that would end up invalidating the GPL, because the GPL is a license that copyrights the source code. Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.

It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving--ranting about the evils of copyrights in a pro-piracy article (because they want free stuff from P2P networks), and ranting about the evils of commercial corporations in a GPL violation article (because they want free GPL software). You can't have it both ways.

Re:Correction

[mcgrew]

Reading TFA, I see there's one thing the P Party says that I don't agree with: the five year copyright term. Yes, copyrights are far too long, but five years is far too short. IINM it was 20 years extendable to thirty in 1900, that seems to me a good length. If you can't make any money off your work after twenty years you're not going to, and if you HAVE made money off of it in twenty years, well, you've made your money, you have been encouraged to do more creating. If the programs I'd registered copyright on had made me a millionaire, I'd be on a beach somewhere with a cold drink in my hand.

Stallman says:
Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it.

I still don't see how clickthrough EULAs can possibly be seen as a "contract". My friend Mike buys a program and since he's not technologically savvy, he has me (or his son) install it for him. He's bought and paid for the copy; he owns that copy. Unlike the dinasaur days when the world only had a few hundred computers, he didn't sign any contract. Now, I or his son installs HIS software on HIS computer, and he doesn't even likely know there IS a contract. How can he be held to that so-called "contract"?

As to DRM, I think if you use DRM your work should not be eligible for copyright at all. That's what copyright is for - to protect the work.

Noncommercial copying should not be against the law, and before the digital age it wasn't.

From TFA:
Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.

This should be illegal. And software can be reverse engineered and a third party patch applied.

Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted

First, Stallman says he would be happy with ten years, I don't agree. But I'm a geezer, 20 years is a lot longer to a 27 year old than it is to a 57 year old*. Secondly, after the original copyright expired, all the parts of the work written after original copyright are still protected by copyright; if GNU's copyright were to run out tomorrow, all enhancements made to GNU would still be under copyright.

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

Personally, I don't think you should be able to copyright object code. The purpose of copyright (in the US at least) is to get works into the public domain. The source code should be available to the public, justas details of a patented machine are. After all, the whole idea is to "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences", not to line somebody's pockets.

That said, it's been said that when you're selling something, make the asking price high and you can always come down. Perhaos this is what the PP's "5 years" is about: "Ok, we'll compromise on a 30 year copyright length".

I'd liketo see another reform that Free Software fols disagree on me with: I'd like one to actually have to register a copyright. There should be no registration fee, and registration could be done at your country's copyright office's web site.

*Yes, Im aware that Stalman is a geezer, too.

Re:Correction

[multisync]

He doesn't have the power to do so, but his explicitly stated goal is for people to only use "Free" software, where "Free" refers to his own twisted definition.

Why does that bother you?

He would like all computer users to enjoy the same freedom that users of GPL software enjoy. Born again Christians would like everyone to accept Jesus as their savior. Obama would like everyone to buy a domestic car. I would like developed nations to work together to improve the standard of living in underdeveloped nations. You would probably like to change the world to bring it more in line with your own ideals if you could.

Other people working to achieve their goals doesn't impact you in any way unless they are able to force you to toe their line. Since you've stated that Stallman is not able to force you to do anything, why do you have a problem with him working to further his goals?

And while we're at it, what exactly is "twisted" about the FSF's definition of free software? Ensuring the user has complete control over their own property seems like a pretty good definition of freedom to me. If you don't agree with Stallman's definition - and assuming you are not just trolling on behalf of Microsoft - I would really like to know what exactly it is that you object to. Is the very existence of the FSF in some way harming you?

Re:Correction

[Otto]

Sorry, but no. Not to Stallman. "Free" has nothing to do with "cost" in his world.

"Free as in speech" is not a metaphor.

Re:Correction

[7-Vodka]

Got to love the Stallman haters. Must be the definition of not having a life.

"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."

"Stallman helped to start a movement that empowers developers by creating a new category of licenses to use for their code, empowers users by granting them express permissions and effectively locks out embrace and extend."

There, I fixed it for ya. Once you wash the smell of B.S. from the original statement it looks quite different.

BTW, every troll who says something stupid when taking a position against Free Software then defends themselves with the argument that they obviously logical and impartial because they 'run linux'.
That is analogous to making ignorant racist remarks and then defending your position by claiming that you "have a black friend".

Re:Correction

[Draek]

I've seen the "freedom means no restrictions at all" argument plenty of times here at Slashdot, and it makes me wonder whether we truly are a community of intelligent, reasoning geeks. Simply put, if we define "freedom" as "lack of any restriction whatsoever", freedom contradicts itself.

Its easy to see why if we modify the Liar's Paradox a little: do you have the freedom to take away others' freedoms? if so, then people can be restricted, therefore there is no freedom, but if not, you're restricted from doing so and, therefore, there's no freedom.

If, however, we define "freedom" as "the sum of potential actions for each individual", its easy to see how restricting one's freedom to take away others' freedoms would, in the end, result in a higher freedom except in the case where nobody would use said freedom, in which case such restriction is irrelevant.

The latter seems to be Stallman's definition of "freedom", and is one that I agree with. But if you have another potential definition that does not fall prey to the same paradox, I'll be glad to hear it and consider it. And honestly, I think the same goes for RMS.

Re:Correction

[ShieldW0lf]

Is a country that gives you the freedom to keep slaves more free than a country that doesn't?

If you repackage my software and are better at marketing it than me, but you build vendor lock in into the code and a million people end up beholden to you as a consequence, did my code help bring people freedom?

Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?

Releasing source should be required. It's a public safety concern that it is not.

Why wait 5 years?

[Hatta]

If access to source code is truly a right, shouldn't that right be enshrined in law from day one?

Re:Why wait 5 years?

[wizardforce]

Precisely. I think the pirate party is making a bargain here as to not look like info-anarchists. 5 years is only a compromise between the ideal and what exists today.

Re:Isn't Stallman the one...

[the Atomic Rabbit]

> 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.

Re:Release later?

[mrvan]

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

Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't

[jythie]

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.

Re:Stallman hurts free software

[IntlHarvester]

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.

5 years is just too short, try 15.

[GiMP]

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.

Re:Stallman hurts free software

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Stallman hurts free software

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

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.

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.

Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone

[smittyoneeach]

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.

Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone

[Weedhopper]

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.

Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone

[dgatwood]

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.