It is probably better to think of the GPLv2 as a means of nullifying the copyright based software business model's restraint on the public domain. Software patents, and DMCA enforced DRM are then brought into play to undo this nullification on GPL code. The GPLv3 then evolves in turn to address patents and DMCA. Perhaps the new broadcaster's right will then be used to protect the delivery of GPLv3 derived software by satellite or web casting? Something to see addressed in GPLv4?
Obviously, the most straightforward thing to do is to simply abolish copyright and patents - recognising that legislation is as Canute to the tide of instantaneous diffusion - a ridiculous proposition entertained only by fiduciary courtiers.
Artificial social contracts are the folly of governments. Let them stick to natural rights. The public should have its freedom restored to enjoy the public domain.
People may like the GPL for it's tendency to encourage reciprocity in terms of publishing modifications, but reciprocity per se is not what what the GPL is based on. The GPL is based on FREEDOM.
The fact that a lot of people think the GPL is about reciprocity is a cause of a lot of upset, e.g. in those obscure cases when people discover they don't have an automatic right to download GPL software for nothing.
"Waaah?!! You can't charge me for downloading your mods to GPL code! It's free! Give back to the community man. The GPL is about reciprocity."
You appear to have drifted away from comparing copyright and GPL based revenue models and into issues of foreign vs local labour markets and competitiveness.
I've already agreed that it all comes down to a matter of supply and demand. We're simply arguing about the relative merits of two different revenue models - GIVEN the existence of demand for your work and your ability to supply it at a competitive price.
I'm proposing the sale of software, you're steadfastly insisting on selling copies of it and keeping the source code secret.
In the hypothetical example, it's two hour's work by a specialist coder (say C# or something). There are at least a thousand punters who want this.
I suggested $1 per punter giving $500 per hour wages - and selling the source code, not just the binaries.
You prefer selling copies of binaries @ $30 per punter giving $15,000 per hour wages - and prohibit copying, keeping the source code secret - and still try to sell copies.
I think it's more likely your approach would be undercut by mine - far cheaper. Even folk in the western world would be happy with $500 for an hour's work. You don't need to invoke Asia to suggest people who'd work for a thirtieth of the $15,000 per hour you'd demand.
I actually proposed selling bug fixes for $1 each, which seems to be far smaller than the $30 you suggest - and heaven knows how much revenue you'd eventually receive.
My method: After a thousand punters you'd get $1,000 and then the fix would be free to all.
Your method: After a thousand punters you'd get $30,000, the software remains unreleased, and you continue charging $30 to each punter. Moreover, you'd sue anyone who attempted to evade payment by copying the software.
One of those is a particularly extortionate and bad deal. Especially considering it's only a couple of hours work.
How on earth can you compare your preferred wages of >$15,000/hour to the cost of living in India or China?
At the end of the day, people will only work if it's worthwhile.
It all comes down to supply and demand.
Just because copyright vanishes in a puff of smoke doesn't mean demand also vanishes in a puff of smoke, nor does it mean that tons of genies will magically appear to provide the supply free of charge.
Copyright is simply a way of spreading out supply and demand - that worked once upon a time - when copying was difficult.
If you have instantaneous diffusion, there is no copyright, only nasty publishers throwing sticks of dynamite into the sea to teach the fish a lesson.
The GPL is a way of avoiding the sticks of dynamite, that's all. It also helps folk get used to the idea of doing business without copyright.
No-one deserves compensation because of the skills they have. You get paid if you can find someone to pay you for what you can supply at a price you're both happy with. That's all.
Now you sell your software, rather than copies of it. And naturally, those who would have bought copies now have to club together in order to buy the software.
Copies are free. The software remains just as expensive as ever.
Ok, so let's imagine you can find a thousand punters to pay you a dollar each for a bug fix to a GPL package. That fix takes you say 2 hours (if you're an expert). That earns you compensation of $500 per hour. Not a bad wage if you ask me.
Where does copyright need to come into it?
Where does the GPL say this is not permitted?
Remember, copyright is a 300 year old (archaic) revenue mechanism that relies upon an unethical suspension of the rights of the public. It's an anachronism in the age of the Internet.
However difficult you perceive making money without copyright (or with the GPL's nullification of it), the fact remains: it is not the OBJECTIVE of the GPL to prevent people selling their software.
As for making it easier to make money from selling software (without trying to sell copies of it), I am working on it...
This is almost as tricky as grokking GPL in the first place - could be even more tricky.
It's very difficult to think of a world without copyright.
The only point in keeping source mods secret is the same reason you don't simply donate all your money to the local community. Your money or your labour is something you are happy to exchange for something of equivalent value.
So, you modify some published (and freely copyable/modifyable source code).
Even the GPL let's you keep your mods secret as long as you want.
Now the fun bit comes when you find someone (or a group of people) willing to offer some money for those mods. They WILL NOT accept a binary. They'll obviously say "What? Do you think we're were born yesterday? A binary is a crok. Give us the source or no deal!"
It is possible that the author may find a punter who can't afford the source and is happy to pay a tiny fraction of the price for a binary. But, remember, this binary can now be freely copied the world over. The binary is now likely to serve as a demonstration of how good the mods are, and help the coder build up a good market for the sale of the source code. And remember, the source code can only really be sold once too, so it's pretty fair that the author at least gets paid once for their work rather than not at all.
I know there are some whacky people out there who have misconceived the GPL as a way to make coders GIVE their mods to each other without monetary compensation, however, this is actually a different philosophy than freeing the public from the bonds of copyright and patents.
Forcing people to work for nothing is actually slavery and not free at all...
So you point out that I am mistaken, but present no argument why that is so. That is called "venturing an unsupported opinion" and is usually ignored by its recipients.
I'm happy to agree with you.
The license specifically states that distribution of derivative works is not required. They are still covered by the GPL, of course, but nobody is making you give them away to anyone. In fact, I have never heard of anyone stating that modifications must be distributed.
How about 'should be distributed'?
Hah! I haven't heard him openly advocate theft before:) But, of course, theft is consistent with his philosophy.
I think the problem is that RMS has settled on his 'four freedoms' as gospel and hasn't sufficiently thought things through, i.e. the collision of his freedoms with the human right to privacy (with similar justification for commercial secrets).
The public should have its right to freedom restored in the public domain, and its right to privacy restored in the private domain. GPLv2 does this quite nicely.
The public does not have a right to invade or violate the private domain.
In other words, neither the public's freedom nor RMS's four freedoms should extend into the private domain.
Copyright may have suspended some of the public's rights to published works, and even extends its reach into the private domain to prosecute this, however, copyright is intrinsically unethical and we can't look to it as a paragon of morality. Just because copyright violates privacy is no reason why the GPL should follow in its footsteps, nor why anyone should advocate it to.
Property is property. If you allow people to become property, i.e. slaves, then it is most certainly theft to free them. He can call it whatever he wants, it is still a violation of property rights.
I hope he simply momentarily mistook the entity in need of emancipation as software rather than people. It is clearly the people that the GPL emancipates, and not the software.
It is unethical to treat people as property - and it is hence ethical to remedy this human rights violation by freeing slaves.
Unpublished software is private property, and of course it would be unethical to violate the property rights of its private owner.
Published software is public property, and it is unethical to suspend or abrogate the public's right to enjoy it - even as incentivising compensation to the publisher.
The public's freedom is limited to the public domain, which stops at the front door of the individual's private domain.
Lyons:In your view it is unethical for companies to ship code that is not free. By this logic, is it ethical for someone to "liberate" that code?
RMS: If you can indeed make that code free software, it would be ethical to do so. But that is hard. It would mean bringing about a state of affairs where people can enjoy all the four freedoms without fear. That is usually flat-out impossible under the current legal system.
Lyons:Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?
RMS: It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).
You're right. I wish I'd remembered this biggie: It is essential that we retain copyright and do our utmost to maximise enforcement and penalties against infringers in order that the GPL can continue to preserve the public's free use and modification of GPL licensed software.
The GPL nullifies copyright. With copyright's abolition, the GPL is redundant and unnecessary.
Of course, the worst thing would be to abolish copyright and retain software patents...:-{
I suspect you're taking my use of 'exploitation' in the pejorative sense it has come to have.
I meant 'exploitation' as in 'maximise productive use of', not as in 'be unscrupulous in taking unfair advantage of'.
I think the unfair commercial exploitation, was to make use of copyright in order to keep source code hidden and/or proprietary.
But, yes, perhaps I was ambiguous given this unfortunately converse secondary meaning of exploit.
The GPL is not meant to prevent commercial use per se, but it will, as a side effect of the freedoms it restores, prevent derivatives from being made proprietary.
The key thing is that 'freedom' is restored to the public. A commercial organisation is also part of the public and consequently enjoys free use of the GPL software it procures - irrespective of any commercial benefit it obtains. It is not FORCED to release any modifications it makes because of this. However, any derivatives it publishes must be similarly free to the recipients (which means source code, given obfuscation is a hindrance).
Essentially, the GPL is agnostic about commercial exploitation (in the positive sense), it cares only that the public's freedom remains preserved.
It is a misconception to believe that the GPL is deliberately engineered to prevent (fair) commercial exploitation, or that it is a poison pill for business (antagonistic to their retention of commercial secrets).
No individual gives away any of their rights. Rights are inalienable.
The government in its arrogant wisdom decided to trample upon individual rights by instituting copyright - this suspended the public's right to copy or derive new works from published works for a 'limited time', in order to incentivise the publisher.
If you don't let anyone see your work, that's you enjoying your right to privacy. However, if you are making copies or derivatives from someone else's published work without their permission, copyright still prohibits this even in your privacy.
If you utilise copyright when you publish your work, you're exploiting copyright's suspension of the public's right to copy or modify your work.
If you provide a typical proprietary license, you may be graciously permitting a backup copy or consequent use of a software patent, but generally still exploiting copyright's suspension of others' rights to the software you've published.
If you utilise the GPL, you're not only restoring the public's rights to your software that were removed by copyright or software patents, but ensuring they remain preserved in any copies or derivatives.
If you utilise the BSD, you're doing little more than simply giving the licensee the choice as to how to license their copies or derivatives, i.e. giving them permission to once again suspend the public's rights to make copies or derivatives.
If you dedicate the software to the public domain, it's not much different from the BSD, but you're also surrendering your status as copyright owner.
So, let's get this straight. No-one gives any of their rights away. You simply decide how many of the public's rights to your published work should remain suspended by copyright.
Until copyright and software patents are abolished, the GPL is the most ethical way of publishing your software. This is because it restores the public's rights, and keeps it that way.
So, the GPL is nothing to do with your rights, but everyone else's.
This is why it's 'free' - it restores the public's freedom.
The GPL is an ethical choice: "I believe the public should be free to enjoy my work, and should remain free - I PERMIT this by providing this license"
The GPL is designed to prevent commercial exploitation, and it does this by forcing companies who use it to publish their modifications.
The objective of the GPL is to prevent the commercial sale of software in order to produce a gift economy in software development.
Microsoft makes money by selling software. Making money by selling software is wrong. Microsoft is wrong. You can't sell GPL software. GPL software is better than Microsoft software.
You shouldn't use GPL software unless you contribute to the community in some way.
Any employee who discovers their employer has modified GPL software and hasn't published those changes should deliberately leak them.
Hacking into websites based on GPL CMSes in order to obtain their unpublished mods is intrinsically ethical.
1) The free software movement - restoring freedoms back to the general public to published software that are otherwise removed by copyright, patents, or DRM.
2) The software development community as gift-economy movement - requiring modifications to be contributed back to the community in exchange for use.
The former is economically agnostic (simply undoes copyright's grant of monopoly as economic incentive, and makes no attempt to contrive any quid pro quo in its place - indeed makes it clear that 'free' does not mean 'free of charge' or 'non-commercial').
The latter is an inversion of the proprietary model, i.e. the community desires proprietary control of its published software and would disallow private use or exploitation unless payment is made in kind (contribution of enhancements). There appear to be underlying aspirations to prevent exploitation by inherently evil corporations. Unfortunately, people are themselves inherently commercial entities (or at least, they have a right to be - to exchange labour), and measures to prevent GPL being commercially exploited simply end up jeopardising a developer's ability to sell their own labour.
If only we can focus on freedom.
Freedom applies to everyone, and yes, even unscrupulous corporations.
You see it with Creative Commons too.
Instead of using the GPL equivalent, CC-SA, people use CC-NC-SA thinking that the NC means 'no exploitation by greedy, selfish corporations' - and they end up preventing even the poorest artists selling their derivatives.
Those who believe humanity can learn from its history forget that human DNA is a lot older.
So actually, we are doomed to repeat our history - until nature selects out our tendency to repeat it.
The worrying possibility is that 'repeating ones history' may be a good species survival trait...
Re:But that's not (my) problem with software paten
on
EU Patent Wars to Resume
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course, who would object to the principle of rewarding worthwhile investment?
It is the unethical nature of the reward that is the problem.
Think of a king that rewarded the inventor of chess with a hundred slaves and concubines to do with as he would. Perhaps a financial reward would be better than one that involved the enslavement of one's fellow men - irrespective of whether such power is in the king's gift?
Software patents are a reward that consists of impacting the freedom of all other software engineers for a limited period, in order that the unscrupulous patent filer, blighter that he is, can enjoy making hay while his competitors' hands are tied.
Don't you think, for just a moment, that perhaps it's a tad unethical to restrain everyone's right to practice their craft, just because it might possibly encourage some genius who has an algorithm that no-one else has thought of, that this genius isn't even willing to tell anyone else about, to publish that algorithm?
Without software patents, such a genius must demonstrate to his fellow men that he has an amazing algorithm, and why it is so fantastic, and that he is prepared to disclose it to any person, or group of persons, in exchange for a goodly chunk of money. Why on earth can't this chappie be satisfied with money?
And if he can't find anyone who is interested in buying his secret, and yet continues to believe that his secret is amazingly powerful, well, perhaps he jolly well should simply keep it secret. When he has successfully exploited it, people can start offering him money for it.
If the point is, that's it's highly likely that someone else may think of it, well then, it bloody well shouldn't be patentable!
And if the problem is that the idea can't be exploited unless it is disclosed, well, no need for patents to encourage disclosure. The public acclaim would easily be sufficient to tip the balance between keeping a privately unexploitable algorithm secret vs published.
I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for my ingenuity.
I was actually quite careful to demonstrate a sense of proportion.
We are talking about a legal mechanism that determines whether human software engineers are free, or not free, to develop software.
There is no co-existence.
Either these people are free, or they are not (they must ensure they have permission from patent holders).
Which world do you prefer?
A world in which some people may control what algorithms other people are or are not permitted to utilise in their software (even if they typically independently reinvent them), or a world in which people are free to develop software without any need to obtain anyone else's permission?
As to dealing with this issue, I am indeed proposing how to do so.
There's always employment in the free software industry.
Software patents are manacles imposed on software engineers.
Whilst it's nowhere near as severe, there is a similar principle at stake here to slavery. If you don't believe in slavery (removing the freedom from coders everywhere to reinvent wheels and utilise them) then you really shouldn't tolerate it, and that includes tolerating your employer doing it.
One might just tolerate employers having software patents as deterrents with a tacit "Oh, but of course, we'd never actually use them!", but I'd rather find another employer, a more enlightened one, than share in the benefit from the removal of others' freedom.
Perhaps we should start a hippocratic oath for coders that entails immediate resignation from any employer who attempts to enforce their software patents?
You shouldn't allow a corporation to squeeze more out of a citizen than they could out of another corporation. There's nothing stopping the bank refusing to lend any money or open any account with anyone apart from corporations. However, even if citizens had intrinsic zero-liability, banks would still lend them money. They already lend money to those highly unlikely to be able to pay it back. Remember, most citizens want to continue a good working relationship with their bank, and to retain their good credit rating.
Banks and any other corporation shouldn't form legally binding contracts or relationships with citizens, simply because they're inherently inegalitarian. This obviously discourages banks lending significant amounts of money to private citizens. And don't forget the bank wouldn't be entirely powerless, there's always the credit rating system (the citizen's reputation).
Want to buy a house? Incorporate, and make the house an asset, etc.
This doesn't stop crimes by the citizen remaining crimes of course, e.g. theft, vandalism, etc.
However, it would exempt all citizens (but not their employers) from copyright infringement against anyone apart from citizen copyright holders. So, if you rip one of Michael Jackson's albums, only he can sue you. If you fileshare a piece of corporately copyrighted software, you can't be sued as a citizen. Of course, if the software's copyright owner was a citizen then you could be sued. And the icing on the cake is to amend copyright to be non-transferable since it represents the interest of the author(s) - whether citizen or corporation.
But, anyway, all this is idle fantasy.:)
The best way to avoid corporations bankrupting families, simply to educate society by way of example, is to educate society not to patronise such nasty corporations. And that requires providing an alternative, i.e. free culture.
The EULA has become corrupted into a contract, because no end user has ever been able to give the judiciary a big enough pay-off to assert its status as a permissive license (unless accompanied by a separately signed contract). Theoretically the EULA cannot do anything except dilute the privileges granted by copyright, e.g. permit a backup.
It could be an interesting, if similarly unethical, ploy for a free-ish software license to insert onerous clauses in its EULA (that claim greater privilege than granted by copyright), only for it to be defeated by the anti-free movement, and consequently invalidate EULAs for all publications - which would be a good thing.
Anyway, if you want to change the system, promote and popularise free culture and refuse to patronise the commercialisation of the public's restraint over its own property.
I'd suggest that employees had an entirely different relationship with their employer than citizen vs corporation, i.e. separate legislation is warranted for employer vs employee grievances.
With RIAA we have a corporation suing a citizen for infringing the copyright held by one of its corporate members.
I would say that at the very least the folk who (on hindsight) misguidedly instituted copyright only ever expected publisher to sue publisher, not publisher to sue citizen.
When all citizens are publishers it's time for copyright to end.
It's going to cost the same whichever way you do it. Think of the personal incorporation as a class action by 1 to many aggrieved individuals. You're going to have to raise funds anyway.
Isolating citizens from litigation from or against corporations protects the citizen, effectively gives them limited liability with zero company assets. A citizen can incorporate at will, not compulsorily by the plaintiff.
If the citizen is prepared to commit funds to suing the corporation then they invest in a company that represents themselves. After all, the artists invest 99% of their labour into record labels which support RIAA that acts on their behalf. Either the original artist sues the citizen, or RIAA encourages the citizen to incorporate so they can sue them - that way the RIAA may even offer them some seed funding, e.g. "Think you can win against us? Want to level the playing field a tad? Ok, here's $500 to cover your incorporation costs with $10,000 of matched funding to start you off - each $ you invest into your incorporated defense fund, we'll match with a $ of ours - that's how committed to justice we are". Naturally, citizens would be extremely unlikely to accept even that offer.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you are a closet copyright abolitionist.
It is probably better to think of the GPLv2 as a means of nullifying the copyright based software business model's restraint on the public domain. Software patents, and DMCA enforced DRM are then brought into play to undo this nullification on GPL code. The GPLv3 then evolves in turn to address patents and DMCA. Perhaps the new broadcaster's right will then be used to protect the delivery of GPLv3 derived software by satellite or web casting? Something to see addressed in GPLv4?
Obviously, the most straightforward thing to do is to simply abolish copyright and patents - recognising that legislation is as Canute to the tide of instantaneous diffusion - a ridiculous proposition entertained only by fiduciary courtiers.
Artificial social contracts are the folly of governments. Let them stick to natural rights.
The public should have its freedom restored to enjoy the public domain.
So, abolish copyright.
Don't you agree?
People may like the GPL for it's tendency to encourage reciprocity in terms of publishing modifications, but reciprocity per se is not what what the GPL is based on. The GPL is based on FREEDOM.
The fact that a lot of people think the GPL is about reciprocity is a cause of a lot of upset, e.g. in those obscure cases when people discover they don't have an automatic right to download GPL software for nothing.
"Waaah?!! You can't charge me for downloading your mods to GPL code! It's free! Give back to the community man. The GPL is about reciprocity."
Nope. The GPL is about freedom. Live with it.
You appear to have drifted away from comparing copyright and GPL based revenue models and into issues of foreign vs local labour markets and competitiveness.
I've already agreed that it all comes down to a matter of supply and demand. We're simply arguing about the relative merits of two different revenue models - GIVEN the existence of demand for your work and your ability to supply it at a competitive price.
I'm proposing the sale of software, you're steadfastly insisting on selling copies of it and keeping the source code secret.
In the hypothetical example, it's two hour's work by a specialist coder (say C# or something). There are at least a thousand punters who want this.
I suggested $1 per punter giving $500 per hour wages - and selling the source code, not just the binaries.
You prefer selling copies of binaries @ $30 per punter giving $15,000 per hour wages - and prohibit copying, keeping the source code secret - and still try to sell copies.
I think it's more likely your approach would be undercut by mine - far cheaper. Even folk in the western world would be happy with $500 for an hour's work. You don't need to invoke Asia to suggest people who'd work for a thirtieth of the $15,000 per hour you'd demand.
I actually proposed selling bug fixes for $1 each, which seems to be far smaller than the $30 you suggest - and heaven knows how much revenue you'd eventually receive.
My method: After a thousand punters you'd get $1,000 and then the fix would be free to all.
Your method: After a thousand punters you'd get $30,000, the software remains unreleased, and you continue charging $30 to each punter. Moreover, you'd sue anyone who attempted to evade payment by copying the software.
One of those is a particularly extortionate and bad deal. Especially considering it's only a couple of hours work.
How on earth can you compare your preferred wages of >$15,000/hour to the cost of living in India or China?
At the end of the day, people will only work if it's worthwhile.
It all comes down to supply and demand.
Just because copyright vanishes in a puff of smoke doesn't mean demand also vanishes in a puff of smoke, nor does it mean that tons of genies will magically appear to provide the supply free of charge.
Copyright is simply a way of spreading out supply and demand - that worked once upon a time - when copying was difficult.
If you have instantaneous diffusion, there is no copyright, only nasty publishers throwing sticks of dynamite into the sea to teach the fish a lesson.
The GPL is a way of avoiding the sticks of dynamite, that's all. It also helps folk get used to the idea of doing business without copyright.
No-one deserves compensation because of the skills they have. You get paid if you can find someone to pay you for what you can supply at a price you're both happy with. That's all.
Now you sell your software, rather than copies of it. And naturally, those who would have bought copies now have to club together in order to buy the software.
Copies are free. The software remains just as expensive as ever.
The sky is not falling. Shift your paradigm.
Ok, so let's imagine you can find a thousand punters to pay you a dollar each for a bug fix to a GPL package. That fix takes you say 2 hours (if you're an expert). That earns you compensation of $500 per hour. Not a bad wage if you ask me.
Where does copyright need to come into it?
Where does the GPL say this is not permitted?
Remember, copyright is a 300 year old (archaic) revenue mechanism that relies upon an unethical suspension of the rights of the public. It's an anachronism in the age of the Internet.
You can actually make money without it.
However difficult you perceive making money without copyright (or with the GPL's nullification of it), the fact remains: it is not the OBJECTIVE of the GPL to prevent people selling their software.
As for making it easier to make money from selling software (without trying to sell copies of it), I am working on it...
Digital Productions
This is almost as tricky as grokking GPL in the first place - could be even more tricky.
It's very difficult to think of a world without copyright.
The only point in keeping source mods secret is the same reason you don't simply donate all your money to the local community. Your money or your labour is something you are happy to exchange for something of equivalent value.
So, you modify some published (and freely copyable/modifyable source code).
Even the GPL let's you keep your mods secret as long as you want.
Now the fun bit comes when you find someone (or a group of people) willing to offer some money for those mods. They WILL NOT accept a binary. They'll obviously say "What? Do you think we're were born yesterday? A binary is a crok. Give us the source or no deal!"
It is possible that the author may find a punter who can't afford the source and is happy to pay a tiny fraction of the price for a binary. But, remember, this binary can now be freely copied the world over. The binary is now likely to serve as a demonstration of how good the mods are, and help the coder build up a good market for the sale of the source code. And remember, the source code can only really be sold once too, so it's pretty fair that the author at least gets paid once for their work rather than not at all.
I know there are some whacky people out there who have misconceived the GPL as a way to make coders GIVE their mods to each other without monetary compensation, however, this is actually a different philosophy than freeing the public from the bonds of copyright and patents.
Forcing people to work for nothing is actually slavery and not free at all...
How about 'should be distributed'?
I think the problem is that RMS has settled on his 'four freedoms' as gospel and hasn't sufficiently thought things through, i.e. the collision of his freedoms with the human right to privacy (with similar justification for commercial secrets).
The public should have its right to freedom restored in the public domain, and its right to privacy restored in the private domain. GPLv2 does this quite nicely.
The public does not have a right to invade or violate the private domain.
In other words, neither the public's freedom nor RMS's four freedoms should extend into the private domain.
Copyright may have suspended some of the public's rights to published works, and even extends its reach into the private domain to prosecute this, however, copyright is intrinsically unethical and we can't look to it as a paragon of morality. Just because copyright violates privacy is no reason why the GPL should follow in its footsteps, nor why anyone should advocate it to.
I hope he simply momentarily mistook the entity in need of emancipation as software rather than people. It is clearly the people that the GPL emancipates, and not the software.
- It is unethical to treat people as property - and it is hence ethical to remedy this human rights violation by freeing slaves.
- Unpublished software is private property, and of course it would be unethical to violate the property rights of its private owner.
- Published software is public property, and it is unethical to suspend or abrogate the public's right to enjoy it - even as incentivising compensation to the publisher.
The public's freedom is limited to the public domain, which stops at the front door of the individual's private domain.To misconceive so comprehensively is an achievement that could only be accomplished by one who sets out to misconceive.
I'm surprised you didn't go for the full monty and also deny the 'deliberate leak' being a misconception. You had plenty of evidence, vis:
Free Vs. Open
Daniel Lyons, 03.21.06
Lyons: In your view it is unethical for companies to ship code that is not free. By this logic, is it ethical for someone to "liberate" that code?
RMS: If you can indeed make that code free software, it would be ethical to do so. But that is hard. It would mean bringing about a state of affairs where people can enjoy all the four freedoms without fear. That is usually flat-out impossible under the current legal system.
Lyons: Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?
RMS: It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).
You're right. I wish I'd remembered this biggie: It is essential that we retain copyright and do our utmost to maximise enforcement and penalties against infringers in order that the GPL can continue to preserve the public's free use and modification of GPL licensed software.
:-{
The GPL nullifies copyright. With copyright's abolition, the GPL is redundant and unnecessary.
Of course, the worst thing would be to abolish copyright and retain software patents...
I suspect you're taking my use of 'exploitation' in the pejorative sense it has come to have.
I meant 'exploitation' as in 'maximise productive use of', not as in 'be unscrupulous in taking unfair advantage of'.
I think the unfair commercial exploitation, was to make use of copyright in order to keep source code hidden and/or proprietary.
But, yes, perhaps I was ambiguous given this unfortunately converse secondary meaning of exploit.
The GPL is not meant to prevent commercial use per se, but it will, as a side effect of the freedoms it restores, prevent derivatives from being made proprietary.
The key thing is that 'freedom' is restored to the public. A commercial organisation is also part of the public and consequently enjoys free use of the GPL software it procures - irrespective of any commercial benefit it obtains. It is not FORCED to release any modifications it makes because of this. However, any derivatives it publishes must be similarly free to the recipients (which means source code, given obfuscation is a hindrance).
Essentially, the GPL is agnostic about commercial exploitation (in the positive sense), it cares only that the public's freedom remains preserved.
It is a misconception to believe that the GPL is deliberately engineered to prevent (fair) commercial exploitation, or that it is a poison pill for business (antagonistic to their retention of commercial secrets).
Rights are inalienable.
The government in its arrogant wisdom decided to trample upon individual rights by instituting copyright - this suspended the public's right to copy or derive new works from published works for a 'limited time', in order to incentivise the publisher.
So, let's get this straight. No-one gives any of their rights away. You simply decide how many of the public's rights to your published work should remain suspended by copyright.
Until copyright and software patents are abolished, the GPL is the most ethical way of publishing your software. This is because it restores the public's rights, and keeps it that way.
So, the GPL is nothing to do with your rights, but everyone else's.
This is why it's 'free' - it restores the public's freedom.
The GPL is an ethical choice: "I believe the public should be free to enjoy my work, and should remain free - I PERMIT this by providing this license"
Unfortunately there are two movements going on:
1) The free software movement - restoring freedoms back to the general public to published software that are otherwise removed by copyright, patents, or DRM.
2) The software development community as gift-economy movement - requiring modifications to be contributed back to the community in exchange for use.
The former is economically agnostic (simply undoes copyright's grant of monopoly as economic incentive, and makes no attempt to contrive any quid pro quo in its place - indeed makes it clear that 'free' does not mean 'free of charge' or 'non-commercial').
The latter is an inversion of the proprietary model, i.e. the community desires proprietary control of its published software and would disallow private use or exploitation unless payment is made in kind (contribution of enhancements). There appear to be underlying aspirations to prevent exploitation by inherently evil corporations. Unfortunately, people are themselves inherently commercial entities (or at least, they have a right to be - to exchange labour), and measures to prevent GPL being commercially exploited simply end up jeopardising a developer's ability to sell their own labour.
If only we can focus on freedom.
Freedom applies to everyone, and yes, even unscrupulous corporations.
You see it with Creative Commons too.
Instead of using the GPL equivalent, CC-SA, people use CC-NC-SA thinking that the NC means 'no exploitation by greedy, selfish corporations' - and they end up preventing even the poorest artists selling their derivatives.
Excellent eloquence.
Those who believe humanity can learn from its history forget that human DNA is a lot older.
So actually, we are doomed to repeat our history - until nature selects out our tendency to repeat it.
The worrying possibility is that 'repeating ones history' may be a good species survival trait...
Of course, who would object to the principle of rewarding worthwhile investment?
It is the unethical nature of the reward that is the problem.
Think of a king that rewarded the inventor of chess with a hundred slaves and concubines to do with as he would. Perhaps a financial reward would be better than one that involved the enslavement of one's fellow men - irrespective of whether such power is in the king's gift?
Software patents are a reward that consists of impacting the freedom of all other software engineers for a limited period, in order that the unscrupulous patent filer, blighter that he is, can enjoy making hay while his competitors' hands are tied.
Don't you think, for just a moment, that perhaps it's a tad unethical to restrain everyone's right to practice their craft, just because it might possibly encourage some genius who has an algorithm that no-one else has thought of, that this genius isn't even willing to tell anyone else about, to publish that algorithm?
Without software patents, such a genius must demonstrate to his fellow men that he has an amazing algorithm, and why it is so fantastic, and that he is prepared to disclose it to any person, or group of persons, in exchange for a goodly chunk of money. Why on earth can't this chappie be satisfied with money?
And if he can't find anyone who is interested in buying his secret, and yet continues to believe that his secret is amazingly powerful, well, perhaps he jolly well should simply keep it secret. When he has successfully exploited it, people can start offering him money for it.
If the point is, that's it's highly likely that someone else may think of it, well then, it bloody well shouldn't be patentable!
And if the problem is that the idea can't be exploited unless it is disclosed, well, no need for patents to encourage disclosure. The public acclaim would easily be sufficient to tip the balance between keeping a privately unexploitable algorithm secret vs published.
I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for my ingenuity.
I was actually quite careful to demonstrate a sense of proportion.
We are talking about a legal mechanism that determines whether human software engineers are free, or not free, to develop software.
There is no co-existence.
Either these people are free, or they are not (they must ensure they have permission from patent holders).
Which world do you prefer?
A world in which some people may control what algorithms other people are or are not permitted to utilise in their software (even if they typically independently reinvent them), or a world in which people are free to develop software without any need to obtain anyone else's permission?
As to dealing with this issue, I am indeed proposing how to do so.
There's always employment in the free software industry.
Software patents are manacles imposed on software engineers.
Whilst it's nowhere near as severe, there is a similar principle at stake here to slavery. If you don't believe in slavery (removing the freedom from coders everywhere to reinvent wheels and utilise them) then you really shouldn't tolerate it, and that includes tolerating your employer doing it.
One might just tolerate employers having software patents as deterrents with a tacit "Oh, but of course, we'd never actually use them!", but I'd rather find another employer, a more enlightened one, than share in the benefit from the removal of others' freedom.
Make a stand, you wouldn't be alone.
Perhaps we should start a hippocratic oath for coders that entails immediate resignation from any employer who attempts to enforce their software patents?
That's about the size of it, yes.
:)
You shouldn't allow a corporation to squeeze more out of a citizen than they could out of another corporation. There's nothing stopping the bank refusing to lend any money or open any account with anyone apart from corporations. However, even if citizens had intrinsic zero-liability, banks would still lend them money. They already lend money to those highly unlikely to be able to pay it back. Remember, most citizens want to continue a good working relationship with their bank, and to retain their good credit rating.
Banks and any other corporation shouldn't form legally binding contracts or relationships with citizens, simply because they're inherently inegalitarian. This obviously discourages banks lending significant amounts of money to private citizens. And don't forget the bank wouldn't be entirely powerless, there's always the credit rating system (the citizen's reputation).
Want to buy a house? Incorporate, and make the house an asset, etc.
This doesn't stop crimes by the citizen remaining crimes of course, e.g. theft, vandalism, etc.
However, it would exempt all citizens (but not their employers) from copyright infringement against anyone apart from citizen copyright holders. So, if you rip one of Michael Jackson's albums, only he can sue you. If you fileshare a piece of corporately copyrighted software, you can't be sued as a citizen. Of course, if the software's copyright owner was a citizen then you could be sued. And the icing on the cake is to amend copyright to be non-transferable since it represents the interest of the author(s) - whether citizen or corporation.
But, anyway, all this is idle fantasy.
The best way to avoid corporations bankrupting families, simply to educate society by way of example, is to educate society not to patronise such nasty corporations. And that requires providing an alternative, i.e. free culture.
The EULA has become corrupted into a contract, because no end user has ever been able to give the judiciary a big enough pay-off to assert its status as a permissive license (unless accompanied by a separately signed contract). Theoretically the EULA cannot do anything except dilute the privileges granted by copyright, e.g. permit a backup.
It could be an interesting, if similarly unethical, ploy for a free-ish software license to insert onerous clauses in its EULA (that claim greater privilege than granted by copyright), only for it to be defeated by the anti-free movement, and consequently invalidate EULAs for all publications - which would be a good thing.
Anyway, if you want to change the system, promote and popularise free culture and refuse to patronise the commercialisation of the public's restraint over its own property.
I'd suggest that employees had an entirely different relationship with their employer than citizen vs corporation, i.e. separate legislation is warranted for employer vs employee grievances.
With RIAA we have a corporation suing a citizen for infringing the copyright held by one of its corporate members.
I would say that at the very least the folk who (on hindsight) misguidedly instituted copyright only ever expected publisher to sue publisher, not publisher to sue citizen.
When all citizens are publishers it's time for copyright to end.
It's going to cost the same whichever way you do it. Think of the personal incorporation as a class action by 1 to many aggrieved individuals. You're going to have to raise funds anyway.
:-/
Isolating citizens from litigation from or against corporations protects the citizen, effectively gives them limited liability with zero company assets. A citizen can incorporate at will, not compulsorily by the plaintiff.
If the citizen is prepared to commit funds to suing the corporation then they invest in a company that represents themselves. After all, the artists invest 99% of their labour into record labels which support RIAA that acts on their behalf. Either the original artist sues the citizen, or RIAA encourages the citizen to incorporate so they can sue them - that way the RIAA may even offer them some seed funding, e.g. "Think you can win against us? Want to level the playing field a tad? Ok, here's $500 to cover your incorporation costs with $10,000 of matched funding to start you off - each $ you invest into your incorporated defense fund, we'll match with a $ of ours - that's how committed to justice we are". Naturally, citizens would be extremely unlikely to accept even that offer.