It appears that there are a number of confusions in Pawlo's article that I
would like to clear up, if possible.
It is ultimately biased to discuss whether or not "someone wants to make
proprietary software illegal". Proprietary software is, as Pawlo's
article notes, based on copyright law. Copyright law is a construct
created by various legal systems throughout the world, and it makes
proprietary software possible.
Laws exist in Free societies for the good of the public. The question
that we raise in the Free Software Movement is: "When copyright law is
applied to software, does it have a negative or positive effect on
society?" And, "If that effect is negative, what changes must be made so
that the public is best served in the realm of software?"
These are hard questions to consider, and are by and large ignored in
today's Free Software debates. I theorize that they are ignored for two
reasons: (a) none of us in the Free Software community have the means to
change existing copyright law anyway and (b) we already have legal tools
that allow us to work for software freedom within the existing copyright
system. In a sense, we have a working solution to the problem.
The GNU GPL is a legal tool that works within the copyright system to
build a world with software freedom for all. However, the GNU GPL never
tries to do an end-run around existing copyright law, nor could it; it is
a copyright license. The GNU GPL is the interim solution that is designed
to give and defend freedom in a world where proprietary software exists
and is the norm.
In the future, perhaps our congresses, houses of parliament, and political
leaders will be ready to have the debate about how copyright for software
could be changed to truly serve society. The Free Software Movement
should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins. However,
we at the FSF by and large don't actively propose ideas of how software
copyright law could be changed to serve society better. It just seems
silly to play "what-if"---focusing on a message that our politicians
aren't ready nor willing to hear. So, we focus on battles we can likely
win: opposition of extending copyright law any further, and a repeal of
the DMCA and DCMA-like laws worldwide.
The Free Software Movement is unique among social movements; we currently
have the means to create the commons we want (i.e., hacking talent) and
the legal tools to defend that commons (i.e., the GNU GPL). I suggest
that we focus on building a better commons and defending the commons we
have, rather than arguing about what we would do if we suddenly became
president or prime minister.
I agree that "what-if" and self-satire are fun games to play at a cocktail
party. However, we have a serious and hard road ahead of us to win
software freedom for computer users. I hope that we can close this debate
that has dragged on and on in our community. I suggest that we focus on
what we need to do in the coming year to defend the software freedom we
have, and to give software freedom to more people who don't have it yet.
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
Please note that this essay is merged version of the two part essay that
appears on Eben's own
website. The articles also appear as Part
I and Part
II in Linux (sic) User UK.
I thought this information might be helpful so some load balancing can be
done.
Calling it a "GPL violation" is a simple shorthand. Legally speaking, it's
copyright infringement due to the fact that the redistributor is violating
the terms of the license he was given.
ethereal wrote:
many people in the past felt that slaves weren't intelligent or driven
enough to govern their own lives, and that controlling and using them for
someone else's good was beneficial to everyone involved.
Actually, this introduces another interesting part of the
slavery/proprietary software analogy. Some people argue that proprietary
software is appropriate, because "users aren't intelligent or driven
enough" to make use of the freedoms to modify and study the software.
This is terribly unfair. Programmers are in the class of users. Some
users program a little, some program a lot, some don't program at all.
But even those who don't program often know who the good programmers are,
and can ask them to modify a program on their behalf. Users deserve these
freedoms, and it's wrong to think that they don't under the guise that
they aren't smart enough to make good use of software freedom.
I know it wasn't ethereal who was making this argument, but I thought it
was an interesting point to introduce to the discussion.
Thanks for mentioning this, Per. I actually hadn't hacked around much
with GCJ, so I was unaware of that. If I get the time, I will check it
out.
For those of you that don't know, my current approach to
perljvm has been to use Per's very nice GNU Kawa system to
make it happen. perljvm needs a lot of work, but Kawa
provides wonderful infrastructure to port dynamic languages to the JVM.
Freed software has the same problem as "liberated software". It refers to
software that wasn't Free, but now is. GNU Emacs isn't Freed Software; it
was always Free Software.
In fact, the only one I ever got pizza from was the Jefferson
Ave. location. Don't remind me about the Bearcat specials. Monday will
roll around, and I will be quite jealous of all you living in Cincinnati
who can take advantage of it.;)
I am working on getting there. I became a vegetarian over a period of
years, and I am working in that way toward being a vegan. It will
take a while, but I hope to get there in the end.
I certainly agree that some people in the Open Source
Movement may have the same philosophy as those of us in the Free Software
Movement. For example, in my long talks with you, Russ, I have come to
realize that you really do tend to support software freedom more than most
Open Source supporters.
However, I meet many Open Source supporters who think that a mixed
model---some proprietary software and some Free Software, is acceptable
and even required. We in the Free Software Movement something
fundamentally disagree with that.
To the extent that the Open Source Movement does a good job at convincing
business people and others that would not agree with the message of the
Free Software Movement, I think that's great. There are many ways to get
a job done, and I even refer people to the Open Source Movement if they
are trying to convince people who fundamentally disagree with the Free
Software Movement.
What I'm calling for is to keep in mind that this is a big community that
includes both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement.
Calling the whole thing the "Open Source community" leaves us Free
Software folks out of the picture, and that's not really fair.
I am glad that there are people like you, Russ, convincing people that we
don't reach in the Free Software Movement. But, the Free Software
Movement takes a firm ethical stance, and we aren't going to change that.
You mentioned the Quakers doing a good job on abolition of slavery. But,
there were many different abolitionists all using different ways of
talking about the issues, and that's what finally ended slavery.
It takes many points of view, cooperating together, to change the world.
When our goals overlap, I call for the Open Source Movement and the Free
Software Movement to cooperate, and I am open to any form of fair
cooperation on common goals.
I certainly see your point that people can often choose not to use
proprietary software, and to that extent, it differs in another way from
slavery.
However, that difference is rapidly disappearing. More and more, it's
becoming difficult to get a job in the USA that doesn't require the use of
proprietary software. For example, I always used to cite "waiting tables"
as a profession that never required using proprietary software. The other
night, I made that point, and someone pointed out that the restaurant we
were at had a proprietary software point-of-sale system. Even in that
profession, people are required to use proprietary software when they
weren't before.
In the industrialized world, we are rapidly approaching a day when you
cannot work in any field without using software---and in nearly all cases,
that software is proprietary software. The difference in the analogy you
introduce disappears completely when that is the case. It's nearly
disappeared already.
I apologize for missing that point. 24 hours ago, I was under the
impression that in most states, when slavery was legal, only white people
could own slaves. Now it appears I was mistaken. My apologies.
Keep in mind that it is government intervention that
allows for copyright and patents. Without government-created copyright
and patent law, people wouldn't be able to create proprietary software.
I don't call for complete abolition of copyright and patent laws. I do
think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do
what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful
Arts". If copyright and patent laws do not do that, they are not in
harmony with the original intent (at least in the USA).
Bob, a few years ago, you used to favor the term "free software" to "open source", and talk extensively about the importance of freedom.
These days, you talk less and less about the importance for a company to respect the freedom of users and programmers. Why is that no longer Red Hat's focus?
In other words, do you still hope to take Red Hat forward as a voice of freedom in the business marketplace, or are you focused on something else?
Slashdot Mirror
FSF has a press release and the affidavit we filed available on our website.
It appears that there are a number of confusions in Pawlo's article that I
would like to clear up, if possible.
It is ultimately biased to discuss whether or not "someone wants to make
proprietary software illegal". Proprietary software is, as Pawlo's
article notes, based on copyright law. Copyright law is a construct
created by various legal systems throughout the world, and it makes
proprietary software possible.
Laws exist in Free societies for the good of the public. The question
that we raise in the Free Software Movement is: "When copyright law is
applied to software, does it have a negative or positive effect on
society?" And, "If that effect is negative, what changes must be made so
that the public is best served in the realm of software?"
These are hard questions to consider, and are by and large ignored in
today's Free Software debates. I theorize that they are ignored for two
reasons: (a) none of us in the Free Software community have the means to
change existing copyright law anyway and (b) we already have legal tools
that allow us to work for software freedom within the existing copyright
system. In a sense, we have a working solution to the problem.
The GNU GPL is a legal tool that works within the copyright system to
build a world with software freedom for all. However, the GNU GPL never
tries to do an end-run around existing copyright law, nor could it; it is
a copyright license. The GNU GPL is the interim solution that is designed
to give and defend freedom in a world where proprietary software exists
and is the norm.
In the future, perhaps our congresses, houses of parliament, and political
leaders will be ready to have the debate about how copyright for software
could be changed to truly serve society. The Free Software Movement
should be ready and poised to enter that debate when it begins. However,
we at the FSF by and large don't actively propose ideas of how software
copyright law could be changed to serve society better. It just seems
silly to play "what-if"---focusing on a message that our politicians
aren't ready nor willing to hear. So, we focus on battles we can likely
win: opposition of extending copyright law any further, and a repeal of
the DMCA and DCMA-like laws worldwide.
The Free Software Movement is unique among social movements; we currently
have the means to create the commons we want (i.e., hacking talent) and
the legal tools to defend that commons (i.e., the GNU GPL). I suggest
that we focus on building a better commons and defending the commons we
have, rather than arguing about what we would do if we suddenly became
president or prime minister.
I agree that "what-if" and self-satire are fun games to play at a cocktail
party. However, we have a serious and hard road ahead of us to win
software freedom for computer users. I hope that we can close this debate
that has dragged on and on in our community. I suggest that we focus on
what we need to do in the coming year to defend the software freedom we
have, and to give software freedom to more people who don't have it yet.
There is a factual error in the interview.
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
There is a factual error in the interview.
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
I thought this information might be helpful so some load balancing can be done.
Calling it a "GPL violation" is a simple shorthand. Legally speaking, it's copyright infringement due to the fact that the redistributor is violating the terms of the license he was given.
The violation has to do primarily with a patent license that imposes terms not allowed by the GPL.
This isn't much different matter than failure to distribute source code.
many people in the past felt that slaves weren't intelligent or driven enough to govern their own lives, and that controlling and using them for someone else's good was beneficial to everyone involved.
Actually, this introduces another interesting part of the slavery/proprietary software analogy. Some people argue that proprietary software is appropriate, because "users aren't intelligent or driven enough" to make use of the freedoms to modify and study the software. This is terribly unfair. Programmers are in the class of users. Some users program a little, some program a lot, some don't program at all. But even those who don't program often know who the good programmers are, and can ask them to modify a program on their behalf. Users deserve these freedoms, and it's wrong to think that they don't under the guise that they aren't smart enough to make good use of software freedom.
I know it wasn't ethereal who was making this argument, but I thought it was an interesting point to introduce to the discussion.
For those of you that don't know, my current approach to perljvm has been to use Per's very nice GNU Kawa system to make it happen. perljvm needs a lot of work, but Kawa provides wonderful infrastructure to port dynamic languages to the JVM.
"Freedom software" has the same problem someone mentioned for "liberty
software". Freedom is a noun, not an adjective.
Freed software has the same problem as "liberated software". It refers to
software that wasn't Free, but now is. GNU Emacs isn't Freed Software; it
was always Free Software.
Again, my apologies for my inadequate knowledge of USA history. Please
remove the word "white" from the phrase "white people" in my interview.
In fact, the only one I ever got pizza from was the Jefferson ;)
Ave. location. Don't remind me about the Bearcat specials. Monday will
roll around, and I will be quite jealous of all you living in Cincinnati
who can take advantage of it.
I am working on getting there. I became a vegetarian over a period of
years, and I am working in that way toward being a vegan. It will
take a while, but I hope to get there in the end.
However, I meet many Open Source supporters who think that a mixed model---some proprietary software and some Free Software, is acceptable and even required. We in the Free Software Movement something fundamentally disagree with that.
To the extent that the Open Source Movement does a good job at convincing business people and others that would not agree with the message of the Free Software Movement, I think that's great. There are many ways to get a job done, and I even refer people to the Open Source Movement if they are trying to convince people who fundamentally disagree with the Free Software Movement.
What I'm calling for is to keep in mind that this is a big community that includes both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. Calling the whole thing the "Open Source community" leaves us Free Software folks out of the picture, and that's not really fair.
I am glad that there are people like you, Russ, convincing people that we don't reach in the Free Software Movement. But, the Free Software Movement takes a firm ethical stance, and we aren't going to change that. You mentioned the Quakers doing a good job on abolition of slavery. But, there were many different abolitionists all using different ways of talking about the issues, and that's what finally ended slavery.
It takes many points of view, cooperating together, to change the world. When our goals overlap, I call for the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement to cooperate, and I am open to any form of fair cooperation on common goals.
However, that difference is rapidly disappearing. More and more, it's becoming difficult to get a job in the USA that doesn't require the use of proprietary software. For example, I always used to cite "waiting tables" as a profession that never required using proprietary software. The other night, I made that point, and someone pointed out that the restaurant we were at had a proprietary software point-of-sale system. Even in that profession, people are required to use proprietary software when they weren't before.
In the industrialized world, we are rapidly approaching a day when you cannot work in any field without using software---and in nearly all cases, that software is proprietary software. The difference in the analogy you introduce disappears completely when that is the case. It's nearly disappeared already.
Cute, but RMS' "Math You" is funny because he used to study math
intensively. I don't think "My Call" relates to my life in any way I can
think of.
Indeed, I usually use this. Or, I just say "available without charge" or
"available without price".
I apologize for missing that point. 24 hours ago, I was under the
impression that in most states, when slavery was legal, only white people
could own slaves. Now it appears I was mistaken. My apologies.
No, this Hacienda was independently owned and operated. And, sadly, now,
is no more.
I don't call for complete abolition of copyright and patent laws. I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts". If copyright and patent laws do not do that, they are not in harmony with the original intent (at least in the USA).
For those of you who prefer a non-hacker announcement of the release, a press release is available.
FWIW, these appeared in Boston and Cambridge, MA as well.
The only part that made me sad was that they didn't include a gnu as well. Surely, if peace and love go with Linux, GNU belongs in there as well.
Bob, a few years ago, you used to favor the term "free software" to "open source", and talk extensively about the importance of freedom.
These days, you talk less and less about the importance for a company to respect the freedom of users and programmers. Why is that no longer Red Hat's focus?
In other words, do you still hope to take Red Hat forward as a voice of freedom in the business marketplace, or are you focused on something else?
I send back only the address label, circle it,
and write "Remove from mailing list" on it.
It appears to work in about 50% of the cases.
I am already on the DMA's opt-out list, but there
are many, many non-profits and companies that do
not respect it.