Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software 546
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."
Balance of power? (Score:4, Interesting)
Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?
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.
subject (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, merely reducing copyright to 40 years from creation would be a MASSIVE step in the right direction.
Release later? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power.
Why not require the source code to be submitted with the copyright registration?
Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
How so?
He wants it one way, GPL software should be protected. That is it, he seems fine with copyright for that purpose. He does support reducing the term of copyrights, but fears that this will lead to the inclusion of GPL software in products were the user has less rights.
Personally copyright should last a little longer than 5 years but not life+70 or whatever steamboat willy is up to these days. Any sold software should have to come with source, because without it the product has very little value as time goes on.
Re:subject (Score:1, Interesting)
anon due to moderation...
It would certainly be a step in the right direction. And while i believe that a 5year term is to big a step, 40 years seems to small a step for me. I would prefer closer to 10 years with a single extension.
Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
I rarely agree with RMS these days (as I discuss in a post below) but I don't agree with typical piracy either. I've done it, but as I get older, I want to pay for products.
I see the game companies I loved as a kid all go out of business, each citing piracy as a primary reason their PC game sales dropped. Other companies just shifted to console development, where piracy is more difficult. If you don't pay to support a product, don't expect that product to exist forever. I also believe a creator deserves the right to be financially rewarded for their creations. Being able to just take that creation for free isn't a right.
I still download a few albums illegally, but if I like them, I usually buy them afterward. Certain artists, I just buy the albums directly.
The only "piracy" I outright support is on two issues.
1 - Preservation of abandonware. If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation. You can not charge to distribute another person's product. If the creator re-releases the product, you can no longer distribute it again for 5 years.
2 - The DCMA says I can't legally circumvent copyright protection, but sadly copyright protection often interferes with software working correctly. I use no-cd/no-dvd patches on every game I own, and try to strip DRM from all software that I can, because I want the software to work correctly.
He's nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman was at my university for a lecture a few months ago. Halfway through he starts lambasting our IT department, most of whom are in the audience, for requiring users to authenticate before gaining network access. The school has a policy specifically *banning* tracking usage or anything invasive. They only require that users provide a username/password before getting network access, and he tears them a new one.
The IT department, BTW, is moving *away* from proprietary (specifically Microsoft) products. Right as the IT department is moving *to* open source, one of FOSS's biggest names decides to publicly hate on them.
Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
So companies like Looking Glass Studios and Origin didn't understand their market well enough?
Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it. The game was deemed a commercial failure, and I'm not sure we'll ever see another game like it, despite the fact that Penny Arcade called it simply the greatest PC game of all time, and most RPG lovers call it their favorite.
It might be an excuse used by management to cover a bad product in some cases, but piracy does affect game sales to an extent.
And when you don't pay to support products, you can't bitch when those products disappear.
A compromise (Score:4, Interesting)
Revitalizing copyright formalities would help to satisfy both parties. One of the traditional formalities that an applicant for a copyright registration in the US had to fulfill was depositing 'best copies' of his work with the Library of Congress. This not only served as a way for the Library to enlarge its collection inexpensively, but also aided the public by preserving copies of the work, which the public could use.
In the case of computer software, I propose that all people seeking a US copyright for works which include a software portion provide copies of the software in such forms, and with such supplemental material as the Library determines are best in order to preserve the work for posterity, and make the knowledge in the work accessible to at least other persons having a reasonable skill in the art, and which pose no, or the least barrier for people to make any and all lawful uses of that software at any time (such as making adaptations or backups pursuant to 17 USC 117 during the copyright term, or anything at all after the copyright term). This would not make software any more free than it currently is, but would make software less opaque. The non-copyrightable ideas and algorithms and learning that compromise a given program would be more accessible even during the term, furthering the goal of promoting the progress of science, just as pioneering literary techniques may be learned by reading a book, and used freely.
Developers who wished to keep their secrets would, of course, be free to not meet the requirements for copyrightable software. Their public domain works would continue to have secret source code.
I am aware, btw, that this would require that the US withdraw from most of the various copyright treaties. Since no meaningful reform is possible with those treaties in place (such as realistic term lengths), I'm in favor of withdrawal anyway.
Re:Why wait 5 years? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lessig Already Proposed this (Score:5, Interesting)
> a requirement that the source code should be released for copyright to be valid.
The solution is simple. Binaries are an accidental byproduct of the current technology so don't build the law around them. Solve the real problem.
Copyright is supposed to be a benefit to the public by granting a limited monopoly to encourage the production of new things which eventually go into the public domain. Current copyright law combined with current commercial software release methods do neither. The time limit is such that any program in the public domain will be useful only to archaeologists running emulators and without the source they won't learn much at any rate.
Yes cut the time limit for software, that is the first part.
Then clarify Copyright Law to require the benefit to the public. Only the Source Code, written by humans, is a creative work worthy of copyright so the complete buildable source plus all control scripts, etc must be submitted when registering the copyright. The binaries will only be copyrighted as 'derived works' of that original work.
Software makers would howl about revealing their secret methods. My reply is Copyright isn't supposed to protect secrets, the idea is to REVEAL knowledge in exchange for the limited monopoly. Same for patents.
I believe that would solve RMS's problems with the proposed five year copyright term.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Interesting)
I see in terms of "the right to life" in Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights vs "the right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
The BSD camp is like the American position which focuses on the rights of the individual, whereas the GNU camp is more like the European position which focuses on the rights of others.
If copyright only lasted five years... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:2, Interesting)
But that is what the GPL does. Stallman believes that there are certain freedoms that should be protected. Those freedoms are protected through a series of restrictions.
Most social contracts work on similar scenarios. We benefit in theory by joining in a society and having a government. That government creates laws and takes away rights. Those restrictions protect us in a sense. But no one can claim they have found the perfect balance of restrictions.
Which is not to say I hate the GPL. I support the GPLv2. Overall, I think it is a very good license. But there is inherent hypocrisy in blasting others for using restrictions to protect content from being copied, when he does the same thing. He lets users copy and distribute code, but developers can't simply take the code without contributing back. You may agree with that decision, but it is a restriction nonetheless. DRM is designed to protect the rights of the creator. The GPL is designed to protect the rights of the creator.
The GPLv3/TiVo fiasco is a fine example here. TiVo used OSS code. They released their modifications to the source code. They complied with the license. Hackers were modifying their boxes so they didn't have to pay for TiVo service. TiVo feels like you should pay for their service and tries to stop people from pirating the service for free.
Stallman claims that TiVo is in the wrong here, and claims this is a very simple black/white issue. So now, the GPLv3 has more restrictions than the GPLv2.
When trying to convince suits to implement OSS in the enterprise, they are terrified by what they read. They are worried that they don't understand the GPL, and that even by using the product for commercial use, they will violate the license. Or that their data itself also must be opened up.
As I try to assuage their fears and convince them that the GPL isn't evil, tech news sites are filled with a crazy looking Stallman blasting companies. It doesn't help the image of FOSS.
I don't see the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.
I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Slow down cowboy, even if copyright ended tomorrow, all that needs happen is for a software developer to say, OK -- I will only release a binary to people who sign a contract with me that says I can sue them for breach if they distribute the software, and perhaps includes a liquidated damages provision (*). Just because copyright ends, doesn't mean you have the right to have someone else's work on your own terms. The only thing it would do would be to make it impossible to sue a user who did _not_ contract with the developer -- although a startup screen offering you the ability to agree to certain terms and use the program, or close it and not use the program, would be a way around even that.
Secondly, the end of copyright does not say anything about whether a company will give you the source code, and you'll face some stiff criminal penalties if you try to break in and steal it.
All the end of copyright would do is make the world full of different individual contracts -- reducing the standardization would mean a huge amount additional lawsuits and appeals over definitions and such, and would be very costly to companies and consumers who will ultimately eat those costs in the purchase price.
(*) liquidated damages provisions can be hard to enforce, but are used where it is difficult to calculate actual damages. The thing is, if you end up getting sued, you lose even if you win because winning is costly.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you consider that developers releasing under BSD might actually enjoy the fact that their code may have a much wider use rate than GPL developers? Lots of software released under BSD has changed the world. That might be more attractive to some developers than ensuring that derivative works are always free.
Re:It confuses people who get the difference (Score:2, Interesting)
There's actually 3 uses of "free"
1. 0 cost
2. No control exerted - use the code for whatever you want, just don't claim you own it
3. Open source enforced - you MUST make everything that uses the code open source as well
#2 and #3 are both "free as in freedom" and are both open source, but only #3 is "RMS free."
What RMS hates about the Pirate Party's proposal is that expired GPLed code would become #2 instead of #3.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
You hit on good points except they're slightly wrong.
First, "software" under copyright is now the "shiny disc" not the source code. It's been that way since at least the late 70's. That means that "example video game" is published in a proprietary medium but the source code and media is retained in a vault as "trade secret". So while FOSS is playing by the rules and losing their rights in 5 years "game company" is not losing their work because it's not "published".
Next, at the enterprise level much code (or things like ERP or HR systems) is "leased" to corporate IT departments, not sold. In some of the code I've seen the programs are under private copyright, and have contractual terms that the code given to the company is "unreleased trade secrets" therefore it won't ever fall under regular copyright rules because it's not "published" publicly, it's kept as a "work in progress". I can see that extended to EULAs quite easily, especially for things like downloadable content... you're just "borrowing".
Lastly, "Public Domain" isn't something that legally exists. The granted term of "copyright" expires, but courts and the legislatures will not codify items as "non-owned". In capitalist countries everything must have an owner.. there's no legal concept or protection for something not to be "owned". As soon as somebody picks up the code, fixes it up a bit, it's now "their" code... the academic idea of "plagiarism" we all learned in school has no legal basis in the real world... if something can't be proved owned (i.e. serial numbered and registered) then it belongs to whoever is holding it now.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Interesting)
I call bullshit that copyright is required for FOSS to exist, it is required for GPL but not open-source. All GPL is open-source but not all open-source is GPL. The most free definition of open-source would be public domain. Unfortunately in the good ole US of A it is nearly impossible to get anything in the public domain anymore.
Re:BSD-style is a waste of talent and resources (Score:3, Interesting)
But that doesn't mean that BSD isn't Open... I would argue that it is instead less Free.
Technically, it enforces a different set of freedoms. Whether or not this trade-off is OK with you is the decision you need to take when you choose a license for the code you've written.
Not all freedoms are enforceable at once. For example, the right of someone to use some library code by embedding it in a product is often very difficult to support (especially with offline devices) at the same time as the right of a user of that device to upgrade the library code. Which should be the superior right? Tricky. I like user rights, but who is the user? Who is doing the support? (Ultimately, diversity is a good thing of course as different people really do pitch the balance differently.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally - I would suggest that copyright protection would be acceptable for "twice as long as it took you to create it, all told" - if you spent 3 years from concept/analysis to final product, then you get 6 years of profit protection for your effort. If it only took you 2 months to come up with, you only get 4 months protection. Of course, that's nearly un-enforcable and way too complicated.
Seriously, are you insane? You're totally ignoring the fact that software is generally created and then incrementally improved through successive release cycles. So, for examle, the linux kernel was initially released in 1991, and so, for argument's sake, let's say development began in 1990. Since then, it's been under continual development, and would now be in its 19th year. So by your logic, the current version would have a 38 year copyright protection. Next year, it would be up to 40. You see where I'm going with this? By 2040, the then current version would have 100 years of copyright protection.
Not only would that make the system seriously overly complex, making it virtually impossible to know when anything enters the public domain, it would end up being worse than the current system!
In reality, the ideal copyright system would have a fixed term from the date of publication, unlike the current system of life + 50 or 70 years (depending on country), so that calculating when a work enters the public domain is easy if you know the date of publication, without having to know when the author has or will die.
5 years is way too short. It shifts the balance too far in the wrong direction. It's even shorter than the original term of 14 (or 28) years. There are a significant number of works that are still worthy of protection after that short period. between 25 and 50 years is more reasonable. Beyond that, the law of diminishing returns really kicks in and the public loses out in favour of the extremely small minority, only serving to fill the pockets of the big media industry, just like in the current system.
Eric Flint argued for a 40 to 42 year term, and I think that's just about right.
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos3 [baens-universe.com]
Nut Job Stallman says Public Domain not FREE!!!??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Ok, so the Public Domain isn't FREE Stallman? Clearly you're a total nut job Stallman!
Yes, you'd lose your base for enforcing the GPL with a five year copyright limit. Then the software would be free from your onerous restrictions that you've imposed upon it.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
It's interesting that truly free licenses based upon Copyright such as the BSD variants of licenses (BSD, ISC, MIT, Apache, ...) wouldn't really be affected as they pretty much rely upon the good nature of the vast majority of people to share rather than forcing rules upon all just because a few might not want to share.
Public Domain is MORE FREE in every way than the GPL!
Simple economics ... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a whole lot of philosophical circle-jerkery going on here to rationalize a very simple position -- Stallman doesn't like the Pirate Party because piracy makes F/OSS software comparatively less attractive than commercial software. That is to say, the major competition among the tech-savvy is not $200 Windows vs. $0 Linux it's between $0 Windows vs. $0 Linux.
Stallman would like nothing more than for Windows (& all other commercial software) to have a 100% foolproof antipiracy scheme out of nothing more than simple free-market economics.
We discussed this to death: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1933254 [slashdot.org]
Re:Correction (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Besides, if GPL software were really free, it wouldn't need *any* kind of copy protection - copyleft or copyright.