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."
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software
FTFY
Re:Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Nah (Score:4, Funny)
He said his main concern is that they should change the name to the GNU/Pirate Party
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are most correct to point that out and it is my sentiment as well. If a 5-year-old version of some software is worth commercial exploitation, then let them have it. Fair is fair. BSD licensed code is a commonly exploited open source license where people and companies take without returning. Look at Mac OS X as a prime example, but Windows also contains BSD licensed components... or it did... not sure if it does now or not.
He is also correct in pointing out that weakening copyright terms and law in g
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
As long as it works both ways, of course. If a commercial work is over five years old, then it too should pass into the public domain. As long as that's agreed, then yeah: fair is fair.
Without that, what you propose is a charter to plunder free software without offering anything in return.
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:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Which begs the question: Isn't BSD License more "free" than the GPL ? I always had problems with "enforced freedom". If it is enforced, how can it be freedom ? If it is truly free, people should be able to do anything they want, including using it on a commercial closed-source product.
I always released stuff under the BSD license, except for a few contributions I did to already existing software.
And yeah, I like the GPL, and am glad for it (Linux, WRT software, gcc etc). But I would never call it a tool of software "freedom".
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is a country that allows you the freedom to choose being a slave more free than a country that stops you from doing so ?
Nope. Your software didn't affect their freedom in any way (either positive or negative
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.
And we could do whatever we wanted with theirs.
I'm okay with that tradeoff.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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: (Score:3, Informative)
The source code is an "unpublished work", not necessarily a trade secret.
WTF Spin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you count all the spin doctors using this to smear RMS as pushing "His (as in only his) Twisted (yes, ppl are using this word) Version of Free".
Essentially what RMS want us to avoid is a world where computers don't obey their owners.
Imagine a world where everybody can install a 5 years old version of Windows 7 that none the less, refuses to install VLC, puts secret IDs in your MSOffice documents, callbacks the RIAA to request permission every time you launch your Windows Media Player. etc.
And he has no
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Besides, if GPL software were really free, it wouldn't need *any* kind of copy protection - copyleft or copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates. The comparison seems to be quite a bit inaccurate. He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates.
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.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is always a tension between different freedoms. Most people realize this, and strive for a reasonable balance. Zealots like RMS emphasize one right at the expense of all others.
Personally, I think a creator's right to decide what parts of his creations he wants to reveal, and at what terms, trumps somebody else's right to know how exactly how he created (in fact I think the latter is barely a "right" at all, even if it may be desirable under some circumstances). Do you think you have a (moral or legal
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, what I said was "assuming you are not just trolling on behalf of Microsoft" I would like a response. In other words, if you are simply trolling, don't bother. Thanks for giving me one.
How is he striving to extend his political influence? By advocating free software? There is a pretty long list of parties [riaa.com] who are exerting real influence on politicians. Stallman is simply doing what every company does when they bring a product to market. If you honestly believe that Steve Ballmer wouldn't like every computer to run Windows, and isn't striving to extend his political influence to achieve that goal, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"Growing list of restriction?" A quick glance [fsf.org] at the "What is free software?" page covers the same ground it always has, as far as I can tell. I won't recite the four software freedoms, but they are the only "restrictions" I know of that bind developers who license their software under the GPL. What do you mean by a "growing list?" Can you provide more information please?
Neither is the GPL. It enumerates the qualities that the FSF believes software (or more accurately its license) must possess for them to consider it "free." It's no different than me saying without self-determination I am not free. If you want to see that as me placing a "restriction on freedom" that's your business, but I don't see how you can define something without identifying the qualities it possesses.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that. Let me give you my take:
He wants to extend rights, define the qualities that make software free and do so to protect the interest of users, protecting them from being subjected to the will of developers. At least that's what I get from "the freedom to run the program, to study how it works, to share it with others and to make improvements to it." (sorry, I know I said I wouldn't recite the list, but I felt it was necessary to make my point).
You are most certainly entitled to disagree with Stallman, to think the GPL is BS and to voice your opinion to anyone who will listen. I'm not questioning that. But you haven't done much to convince me Stallman is restricting anyone's rights. If you write code, don't license it under the GPL if it offends you. If you simply use software, then you can happily ignore the GPL altogether, since (unlike every EULA I've ever read) it places no restrictions on the user.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that statement is about as far from the truth as it can get. GPL is nothing about the developers' freedoms. It's all about the users' freedom. It's a bill of rights for the users. It guarantees users' freedoms at the expense of developers' freedoms, in much the same way a bill of rights guarantees citizens' freedoms at the expense of the goverment's.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program. snip.. However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software distribution becomes a powerful disincentive. snip... Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I am paid. snip... This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one will want to program.
He does believe that Software should be able to be distributed free of cost though he always avers that Free means libre and not zero price. The major flaw is his reasoning is that he thinks that since the marginal cost of producing an extra copy of software is zero, the price should be zero. But what about the sunk cost? If it costs $200 million for Adobe to make Photoshop, the first copy would cost $250 million and the rest would be free. Adobe folds after that and a magical group of hackers appear and work on it's code to produce the next version for free like they do for Gimp and OpenOffice now? Give me a break.There's some aspects of software development(like extensive testing, making it user friendly etc.) which is NOT fun and shouldn't be outlawed in the name of Freedom.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)
Please practice reading comprehension. The ongoing development cost would be made up by fees for ongoing support and services. He said that very clearly, and for you to blatantly ignore it suggests that you have your own agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The major flaw is his reasoning is that he thinks that since the marginal cost of producing an extra copy of software is zero, the price should be zero. But what about the sunk cost? If it costs $200 million for Adobe to make Photoshop, the first copy would cost $250 million and the rest would be free.
Your own major flaw in reasoning is that you think software has to be built by the model companies like Adobe use.
There's some aspects of software development(like extensive testing, making it user friendly etc.) which is NOT fun and shouldn't be outlawed in the name of Freedom.
Now wait a second, making software user friendly IS fun! So I certainly do agree it shouldn't be outlawed - now why on earth does Stallman suggest that? Oh, wait, he doesn't...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or would you disagree that BSD is free? BSD licensing is closer to how code would become if the Pirate party succeeds. Private business can then take freely contributed code (after 5 years) and then wrap it in a private product and sell it for money. This is something RMS vehemently opposes hence his creation of GPL which requires all derivative works made from GPL licensed goods be forced to use GPL and the source be made publicly available if they want to distribute it.
RMS and GNU need c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
The idea is that FOSS exists by default, and the GPL was created to prevent FOSS from being copyrighted as well as promoting others to contribute to FOSS. So copyright laws aren't required for FOSS to exist, just the GPL couldn't be used to promote FOSS anymore.
FWIW Mr. Stallman would gladly welcome the change. I went to a talk by him on copyright at the Cordozo School of Law(IANAL) not long ago and he said as much.
Re: (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: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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code.
If you abolish copyright entirely, this doesn't happen. Thus your objection is ridiculous.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
It's true! Actually, without copyright law there is less freedom for the software. As a customer you might get into a position where you can only get binaries. However, that is only a problem for GPL-type licenses, not for BSD-type licenses. Both are Open licenses, and both are arguably Free (depending on your definition.) So while he does have a point, his being forbidden to reuse or publish his own code isn't an argu
BSD-style is a waste of talent and resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
If you ever understood why Richard Stallman takes exactly the stance he takes, you would never make so a silly statement.
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
So Richard Stallman sought a way to make such a code grap impossible by design - by inventing a license that removes all your rights to all the code you were given the moment you try to shield it from other people.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
If you because of your limited experience don't see the point, it's not Richard Stallman's fault.
WRONG. No company stole his code. Stop making shit up and then accusing others of being of 'limited experience'. Good job on gaming Slashdot to get +4 insightful though. It's so easy, just write what they want to hear. The real reason Stallman did what he did: From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html [gnu.org]
The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs queued. These features facilitated smooth operation. Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often went for an hour without being fixed. The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program. Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
Then the Stallman put on his Open Sauce cape, jumped out of an open window and flew to the moon. There he went into meditation for 25 years to discover the secrets of cheese. And upon his return he came back with superpowers and destroyed the company in question with his mighty beard, and the whole world rejoiced and then the Stallman created world peace with his open sauce.
There, if you have to make shit up, at least make it believable.
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not commercial, but TeX has been used almost unmodified since 1986.
Re: (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
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:4, Funny)
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.
I'm not a fan of popular what-passes-for-music either, but even I'm willing to give them more than two weeks of copyright protection.
Why wait 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pretty big "if" right there.
Re:Why wait 5 years? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why wait 5 years? (Score:5, Funny)
dumbass, that's not in the Constitution. It's in the Deceleration of Independence.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand, Stallman maintains that all commodity software should be free for ethical reasons, and he is fine with getting there via incremental changes to the copyright law.
Lessig Already Proposed this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lessig Already Proposed this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, like patents except the delayed release of the design.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like this idea too. Copyright was originally conceived of as a balance. People agree to give up their right to copy in exchange for the hopeful encouragement of publishing companies to publish and authors to write.
People who want copyright on their software should have to give something up to get it. There must be a balance for taking away people's right to copy.
Re:Lessig Already Proposed this (Score:5, Informative)
The second session of the United States Congress established 14 year Copyright terms with an optional 14 year renewal. Going back to that and requiring publication for application of Copyright would be a good step.
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.
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.
Re:Balance of power? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
Do you really want releasing software to become a process for which you have to register and do paperwork with the government at every release?
Honestly, I don't know how any of this is considered "Free" (as in Papers, please.).
Giants? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.
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:Release later? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman Says (Score:5, Funny)
I... don't kiss many girls.
THE TRUTH (Score:5, Funny)
Richard Stallman is jealous that pirates have the better beards.
RMS had a good idea??? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderful.
Software copyright is the only form where the material has no automatic way to enter the public domain when it should. Some kind of escrow as a requirement for protection would do the trick.
Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman makes a good point. One problem with copyright at present and the distribution models is that it actually inhibits the development of knowledge and civilisation by making information more difficult to maintain. I would like to see copyright terms rolled back to what it was originally before it was extended so many times, and also for copyright to expire immediately when the work is no longer being published or being made accessible at the similar cost it was originally offered at. The copyright could be reinstated if the work is offered again by its author for a similar price as it was originally offered. I would like to see an ability to pay scheme introduced that would allow poor/low income persons to access knowledge at a lower cost, and for access to software at reduced cost for hobbyist use. one of the problems with commercial software is it is so often so expensive, the price can sometimes be the same for a revenue producing busienss as a non commercial hobbyist. The development model and source is also closed which retards the improvement of the software, and takes away control of users from being able to understand what the software they paid for and they run on their computer is doing, or offer their own improvements to the software. I would like to see more of a model adopted by companies of an ability to pay price structure, and where they provide source code to those who use the sotware, even if under a proprietary source licence.
Stallman + katana (Score:2)
Typo in the article title (Score:2)
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Expensive Operating System and Brand Name Software Companies
Corrected it for you.
5 years is just too short, try 15. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while I like the spirit of your idea, I think it is misguided due to the unfortunate consequences such a law would bring. With your proposal, any work not submitted in full to the copyright office would not be given copyright protections. With dynamic works such as software, this would be a disaster! It would require that either all changes to GPL works are first processed by the copyright office, or worse, those works fall into the public domain! It would kill all open source licenses an
Stallman is right, think about it... (Score:3, Informative)
There are two camps using copyright law as protection:
1. Copyright law keeps source code non-proprietary (e.g. GPL)
2. Copyright law keeps source code proprietary, so you have to pay to use the product (e.g. most commercial software)
Now apply a 5 year expiration of copyright:
Result to 1:
The source code is already visible, and nothing protects the code anymore from someone stealing it and making it proprietary, despite the intention of the authors for it to remain non-proprietary.
Result to 2:
The source code is NOT already visible. Lack of copyright protection makes the product free-as-in-beer, but mere expiration of copyright does not force the authors to release the source code. So the result is that no one else can steal the source code like they could for expired FLOSS copyright.
So yes, there IS an imbalance of power. In no way does this help authors preserve the freedom to keep software non-proprietary.
And no, it's NOT just a simple case of each side has a right to keep their code open or closed as they see fit. It favors proprietary software to remain proprietary, but removes protections for software to remain non-proprietary. Stallman is right: the only way to keep it fair is if both sides must make the source code available.
THINK PEOPLE.
If copyright only lasted five years... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why I *really* hate RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
Because his "no-compromise" attitude has been proven right for many years. I envy him for being consistent thru all these years. Unfortunately, it is more confortable to live in a grey area, because it gives more benefits in the short term. Even if you think he is wrong, he has been holding his opinion for many years. That fact by itself deserves recognition and respect...
Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
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.
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: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: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.
Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DRM is a way for companies to control the behavior of users after they've bought the product. It's a way to lease things to people rather than sell them. It's a crime that companies are allowed to 'sell' you DRM things. It's a lease. You don't own it.
Stallman is completely correct in calling DRM evil. Witness Amazon forcing people to return their books when the fact that they 'own' them is inconvenient for Amazon.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:4, Insightful)
> Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth... Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits.
And what an original, devastating insight.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're posting AC and calling me out on trolling?
A troll wouldn't praise Stallman for positive contributions. A troll wouldn't say that Stallman is correct in this specific instance (which he is).
I've made level-headed logical statements. I haven't made personal attacks at any posters here. And I haven't responded to bait to incite arguments.
Where is there any indication here that I'm trolling?
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should read what he actually wrote. His argument is very tempered and coherent. I believe the heart of it comes down to this sentence
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users. As soon as a song falls into the public domain (whether 5 years or 100 years) the actual work is out there for others to use, copy, modify, whatever. But with proprietary software, the copyrighted material is kept closed and secret. The thing the users have is a compiled version that can't easily (or sometimes at all) be used in another project or modified or learned from, even once it's in the public domain.
With insanely long copyright terms, proprietary software is protected by the fact that you don't have access to their source code and the law; whereas free software is only protected by the law. Once you take away the force of law after 5 years, proprietary software is still protected by the secrecy, and free software is completely unprotected.
Now if you want to get into a holy war over the GPL vs. BSD, fine, but that's a separate argument. If you care at all about the GPL, then RMSs point about the Pirate Party's goal makes a whole lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simple example: Once upon a time, in my linux n00b days, thanks to the GPL, I used to change the source of
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:4, Informative)
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
Thank you for recognizing this.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits. He goes after Linus, Mozilla and Google, never realizing who his friends are in the FOSS world. He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free.
I disagree with the first sentence, while the rest is certainly true. Stallman only has cookies (the GNU toolchain, the GPL), he does not have a beating stick. He is not forcing anyone to do anything. He is not forcing anyone to even listen to him. You can write software and license it under whatever the hell you want, Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful. You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team. Stallman is not it.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions.
You have to listen to the arguments before you rebut them. Free software owes its freedom solely to copying restrictions enforced via copyright law. The sense in which Stallman uses the word "free" has been the same for more than 20 years.
In reality, he wants to remove rights,
No, the copyright law does that. It removes all rights and GPL gives most of them back to the user. Few licenses out there are less restrictive than GPL.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
I don't think you understand the purpose of DRM. Put simply, it is similar to that of a gigantic black dildo with sharp metal spikes. Very different from GPL, which is more like a cute pink bunny that burps gold and shits rainbows.
In conclusion, Stallman is right again and we are all very lucky to have him around.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition?
You are probably thinking of discredited neocon kook Eric S Raymond.
Stallman says you should use "free software" for ideological reasons even if it is inferior.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's the one. I can never keep the two kooks straight.
Re:Isn't Stallman the one... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:2)
That works so long as they also provide the necessary information to compile it.
... just having the source code is not enough, if it's in some undocumented language with no compiler available.
(and even with that, I see some sort of code obfuscation being done on anything that's published, and all comments stripped out to make it difficult to understand what's actually being submitted)
Re:Pirate Party Slogan (Score:4, Funny)
All yer source code arrrrr belong to us!