[Solar-general] entrevista a stallman

Jue Sep 29 22:26:59 CEST 2005

Disculpen por el largo mail; pero através de la lista de noticias de
sourceforge me llegó esta entrevista hecho por un periodista de
informática de Italia hecha a Stallman sobre la nueva versión gpl. Tal
vez alguno le interese lamentablemente está en inglés 

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay by Federico Biancuzzi 09/22/2005 

In a recent interview, ESR shocked a lot of people when he said, "We
don't need the GPL anymore." Federico Biancuzzi recently contacted RMS,
founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU
system (the G in "GLAMP"), to talk about the past, the present, and the
future of the GNU GPL. Among other things, they discussed the new
clauses of the upcoming GPL version 3.

In a recent interview I did with Eric Raymond, he stated, "We don't need
the GPL anymore." I'm sure that you don't agree, right? 

The GNU GPL is designed to achieve the goals of the Free Software
Movement; specifically, to ensure that every user of a program gets the
essential freedoms--to run it, to study and change the source code, to
redistribute copies, and to publish modified versions. The GPL does that
job very well; most other free software licenses don't try.In fact, some
non-GPL-covered free programs have widely used nonfree versions. For
instance, consider Apache, whose license is free software but not the
GNU GPL. We often hear that some 70 percent of web servers use Apache;
what we don't hear is that a large fraction of those servers are using a
nonfree modified version of Apache, as permitted by the Apache
license.If what you value is the popularity of your code, and such a
thing happened to your program, you might consider it a good outcome. In
the Free Software Movement, our goal is to bring freedom to computer
users, and such an outcome for us would be a substantial setback. The
GPL does good service in preventing this.

Is free software a better system of production? 

Free software isn't a system of production. It means software that
respects the freedom of the user--regardless of how it was
developed.There are four essential freedoms that define free software:

The freedom to run the program as you wish.

The freedom to study the source code and change it to do what you wish.

The freedom to make copies and distribute them to others.

The freedom to publish modified versions.

If a program gives its users these freedoms, it is free software. If it
does not, then for the sake of my freedom I will avoid using it.These
criteria are a matter of the program's license; they have nothing to do
with how the code was written, or by whom, or by how many people. A
program can be free software if it was written by a collaborative group,
and it can be free software if it was written by a single person.

There are some who say that a collaborative development model, taking
advantage of these freedoms, tends to make software that is technically
better. They may be right, and it would be nice if freedom brings such a
practical bonus. However, the freedom itself is more important than the
bonus, so the Free Software Movement focuses on the freedom.

Did the GPL contribute to the popularity of GNU/Linux, or maybe it was
just a "social signal"?

I know that the GPL contributed directly to the capabilities of
GNU/Linux. I can cite two examples from memory, but I am sure there are
many more.The GCC support for C++ was implemented by MCC. If not for the
GPL, they would have made it nonfree software. The GPL did not allow
that, so they made it free. C++ support is rather important, I
think.Large contributions have been made to Linux, the kernel, by
companies that don't normally develop free software. If they had made
nonfree versions instead, that would have been a great setback. But
that's not the main point. The GPL does something even more important:
it guarantees that all users receive the freedom to share and change the
software. That's the purpose of the GNU system, what it intends to
deliver--the freedom to cooperate, for each and every user.

Do you think that GNU/Linux is so famous (more than BSD, for example)
because it comes under a license that defends users' freedom? 

I don't know--but the question doesn't seem important. Our goal should
be to spread freedom and then defend it. That is more important than
making our software popular, which would just be catering to our egos.A
lot of free software projects choose to use the following phrase in
every of their program files: 

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version. But this means: 

The user will choose which particular version of GPL he prefers, not the
original software author. 

The user could choose this moving target (GPL 2.0, 2.1, 2.x, 3.x)
appropriately in case of a lawsuit. 

How can this undefined condition be a good thing? 

This achieves two goals. First, that we can release future GPL versions
and they will apply to the existing software. Second, that in releasing
future GPL versions, we cannot impose any new restrictions on the
existing software. GPL version 3 will need to contain specific
requirements that GPL version 2 does not have. Nothing large--the
overall idea will be the same--but there will be some. I designed the
words you've quoted to make it possible to distribute the existing code
under GPL version 3, without imposing even the smallest new requirement
on existing code, because people will still be able to use it under GPL
version 2.

Will you keep this phrase with the GPL v3 too?

We cannot assume that GPL v3 will be perfect, that no further change
will ever be needed. 

What type of compatibility and interaction will GPL 3 have with previous
version of the license? 

Even small changes from version 2 of the GPL will result in an
incompatible license. Two slightly different licenses, each saying that
modified versions of a program must be distributed under the same
license, are inevitably incompatible. That's why we suggest that
programs permit use of future versions of the GPL. It is the only way
they can migrate.

Linux (the kernel!) comes under GPL version 2. Quoting Linus's note:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is
concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2
or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. What would you
do if Linus chose to keep the kernel under GPL v2.0? Would you promote a
fork led by someone else under GPL v3? 

Only the developers of Linux can decide what to do about licensing of
Linux. I hope they'll decide to convert back to "GPL version 2 or later"
and subsequently upgrade to GPL version 3, but it's up to them. There's
nothing in the matter for me to do.

Maybe you could talk about the common question that people have: a
project under GPL that receives a patch under GPL 3. What happens? 

If the project's current code permits use under "GPL version 2 or
later," they can integrate that patch. However, the files where they
have merged in the patch will have to say "GPL version 3 or later."They
also have the option of not using that patch, or asking the contributor
to give permission for its use under "GPL version 2 or later."

If I take a patch under GPL 3 and merge it with a project under "GPL 2
or later," should I write that the new license for the whole project is
GPL 3? 

The merged program as a whole can only be used under GPL 3. However, the
files you did not change could still carry the license of "GPL 2 or
later." You could change them or not, as you wish.

And then include GPL 3 in the file named COPYING? 

Yes, you should include a copy of GPL 3. If some files remained under
"GPL 2 or later," then you should also include a copy of GPL 2.

Will GPL 3 include any specific clause for dual-licensed software? 

The term dual licensing refers to various different kinds of policies.
All they have in common is that the same developer releases the same
code under multiple licenses, giving the user a choice of which license
to use.

There is no need for the GPL, or any free software license, to contain a
specific clause for this. If you want to release your program under two
licenses in parallel, you can always do that, and the licenses in
question need not be specially designed to make that possible. 

Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their
services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to
request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior
like a product distribution? 

Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public
use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will
have to include a command for the user to download the source for the
version that is running.But this will not apply to all GPL-covered
programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus,
this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers
could activate it in the future.This is only a tentative plan, because
we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.

How would it work?

If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will
require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of
the program. 

Do you plan to define explicit punishments in the GPL 3 for people or
companies that don't respect its clauses? 

GPL version 2 already does this: it states that violating the license
conditions terminates the license. We're considering changing the
details a little, but not more than that.I think this is an interesting
topic. Sometimes we hear that a company violates the license conditions,
but I think there is still a lot of confusion about what should happen
next. 

Could you please explain what type of consequence it brings, and what
"terminates the license" means concretely? 

Legally, termination of the license means that that person or company no
longer has legal permission to redistribute or modify the software in
question. If it continues to do so without permission, it is copyright
infringement, the copyright holders of the program can sue.Copyright
infringement is not necessarily wrong, but distributing software without
respecting the freedom of the users is necessarily wrong. If we ever
need to sue to enforce the GPL, the ethical justification won't be "you
disobeyed us" but rather "you are trampling other people's freedom, and
we are here to defend it."If the author of GPL says "copyright
infringement is not necessarily wrong," some people could take code
covered by GPL and claim that violating GPL terms is "not necessarily
wrong." I've addressed that point in the statement that inspired your
question. 

The GPL gets its legal force from copyright law, but that is not a
source of moral authority, so none can come from there. Why then is it
wrong to violate the GPL? Because that tramples other people's freedom
or puts it at risk.

The official version of the GPL is the English version, and it is the
only valid version. This means that translations are not legally valid.
Is this going to change? 

Authorizing a translation of the GPL is very risky, because a mistake
could be disastrous worldwide. Most of the world's major languages are
known by neither me nor Eben Moglen. We would have to rely on
translators who are lawyers but not necessarily free software
supporters, and we could not check their work. Thus, mistakes would be
rather likely.We're thinking about the idea of authorizing translations
that are valid for one country only. That could reduce the risk to the
point where we could consider it.

How do you plan to write a license compatible both with U.S. laws and
international laws? 

The GNU GPL is based on copyright law. Due to a rather ill-conceived
treaty, the Berne Convention, and an extremely nasty treaty officially
called TRIPS but which I prefer to call TRIPES--"trade-restricting
impediments to production, education, and science"--copyright law is
basically the same in most countries around the world. It is not hard to
design a copyright-based license that works based on copyright as
specified by these treaties. Then it will work nearly everywhere.
Individual countries can have peculiarities, and when we find out about
them, we will try to take them into account--mainly by avoiding them, so
that we continue to have one text for all countries.

Does this means that the GPL 3 will not cover intellectual property
licensing and patent issues because it is a "copyright based" license? 

People should never use the term intellectual property, because it lumps
together various disparate laws and misleadingly suggests they are
similar enough to discuss as a coherent whole. Anyone who speaks about
"intellectual property" is generally either trying to confuse you or is
confused himself. For more explanation, see this page.Patent law is one
of those disparate laws that makes your question resemble the amusing
sign that once graced a store in Cambridge: We Serve Food and Greek
Subs. (However, "food" is a much more coherent category than
"intellectual property." All foods have enough in common that talking
about "food" in general sometimes does make sense.)

Moreover, copyright law--although its rules and effects are nothing like
those of patent law--is also one of those disparate laws. Thus, the
question resembles, "Does this mean you won't serve any food, because
you've only got those Greek subs?"

I'll avoid the term intellectual property in my response, to avoid
contributing to confusion. But I think GPL 3 will probably give very
simple permission for using the contributors' patents, if any--just to
make it explicit. That's all it will do in regard to patent law. All the
conditions will still be based on copyright law.

It may also contain a clause that retaliates against patent lawsuits, if
we can find a way to draw one up that seems effective enough to be worth
including. But this clause will be based on copyright law. Such
patent-retaliation clauses in other free software licenses are generally
based on copyright law; they are conditions for using the copyrighted
program.

What do you mean by "just to make it explicit"? 

Releasing a program and giving permission for people to copy it
implicitly promises not to sue them for doing so, on any basis. So those
who distribute a program under any free software license are giving an
implicit license, if one is needed. However, we're thinking of adding an
explicit statement of this, just to reassure anyone who has doubts.

You said also that GPL 3 "will probably give very simple permission for
using the contributors' patents." Does this mean every patent of the
contributor, or only those that cover features already in the software? 

The implicit license, we believe, only covers techniques used in the
code as the distributor distributes it. We're not sure exactly what GPL
3 will say about this, but it won't be greatly different.I thought about
this, and came to the conclusion that as soon as a company releases a
piece of code under GPL 3 that uses one of its patents, everyone will be
able to use that patent freely, provided that he respect GPL 3 terms.
Not quite. It means that everyone will be able to use the same patented
technique that the released code uses, by using that code under the GPL
terms. 

Do you expect that this could sound "dangerous" to business companies,
and that will become an obstacle to transition from GPL 2 to GPL 3? 

GPL version 2 implicitly does the same thing, and this has not prevented
it from being successful, nor prevented companies as large as IBM from
contributing code to programs released under GPL version 2. There is no
reason to presume that replacing the implicit permission with an
explicit statement of the same thing would change their response.But the
deeper response to that question is to point out its questionable
assumption: an exaggerated idea of the role that companies will play in
the adoption of GPL version 3. The GNU GPL became the most popular free
software license because thousands of individuals used it for their
programs. Only a few companies played a role in this, by choosing the
GPL for their programs. Companies will play a role in the adoption of
GPL 3, but not the principal role.When discussing software patents,
let's not forget that each software patent attacks the freedom of all
programmers and all computer users. Each software patent points at a
different area of software practice, so the programmers and users who
are likely to actually be in the crosshairs varies from patent to
patent. But this variation of details doesn't alter the overall nature
of a software patent: it's a threat against your freedom. See Foundation
for a Free Information Infrastructure for more explanation of this.

Is the patent system broken (and needs fixing) or useless (and needs
termination)? 

"Useless" is an understatement--in the software field, the patent system
is harmful and unjust. 

Some big companies have announced that they will share their patents to
cover Linux (the kernel!) and some other free software projects. Because
Linux people didn't refuse this move, now they have an entanglement with
those patents. Doing so, they sent a message to the people that is
clearly not "we are against patents." 

That is a peculiar way to look at the situation. I don't see how we have
any more "entanglement" with these patents now than we did before those
announcements.These companies said they would not use certain patents to
attack some free software projects. IBM said it wouldn't use a specific
set of 500 patents to attack any of us. Nokia said it would not attack
Linux the kernel--but said nothing about the thousands of other programs
in a typical GNU/Linux system.We should not criticize those companies
for the decision not to attack some of us with some of their weapons. In
that, they are doing the right thing. What we should criticize is the
implicit remaining threat to attack the rest of us, or attack us with
the rest of their weapons. If a company commits not to attack free
software with patents, that company will not be a threat to our
community.However, even if some companies do that, others will not.
Where software patents exist, no software developer, no computer user is
safe from them. So the important issue is to reject software patents in
Europe (and elsewhere)--so that these companies, and others, won't have
a way to attack people there.

The vote in the European Parliament rejected one attempt to impose
software patents on the European Union, but it did not settle the issue.
We have driven off the software patent forces, but not defeated them.
They will surely attack again in another way.

I didn't hear anyone saying, "Thanks, but we don't want your patents
because we are against this system and we don't want to support it or be
part of it." Don't you think they should have? 

That would have been a foolish and irrational response.The danger of
software patents doesn't come from companies promising not to use
certain patents against certain free software packages. Those cases are
the exception--the usual case is that the software patent holder has
made no promise not to sue the particular developer or user in question.
That's what makes software patents dangerous to society.Getting those
promises won't abolish software patents, but rejecting those promises
when offered won't do it either. The fact is, nobody has a plausible
plan for how to abolish software patents in the U.S., against the power
of the megacorporations that dominate the U.S. government. If we keep
educating the public, and occasionally boycotting companies that
actually sue, maybe someday a situation will arise where we find a way
to abolish software patents. But I don't plan to hold my breath waiting
for that, and in the meantime, if some companies promise not to sue some
free software projects, that is a relief.

Palladium could be a big freedom threat. Do you plan to add any specific
clause to GPL 3? 

Palladium was Microsoft's name for one particular scheme for Treacherous
Computing. There are several such schemes, different in their details,
but what they all have in common is that they are designed to make it
impossible for you to program your computer to do certain jobs. They are
based using on encryption and signatures with keys that are not under
your control, so that no program you write will be able to use the same
keys.Microsoft, Intel, and other Treacherous Computing proponents cite
various possible applications of losing control over your computer, but
this is a distraction, as their principal motive is to make Digital
Restrictions Management impossible to break with software. DeCSS is
censored in the U.S. and Europe, but at least it exists. Imagine if
writing DeCSS were mathematically impossible--that is the world of
Treacherous Computing.

DRM is an injustice in itself, but Treacherous Computing also attacks
free software as a side effect. Since no one can write free software to
access the DRM files, that becomes a job that only proprietary software
can do--an artificially imposed problem that can never be solved.We
would consider modifying the GPL to block Treacherous Computing, but it
is not clear that any such change could help. Microsoft, Intel and the
rest have no need or wish to employ GPL-covered software in direct
support of Treacherous Computing; forbidding them to use it that way
won't protect us from their plan.Intel already has Treacherous Computing
hardware in the pipeline. Resistance probably has to be aimed at that
preventing the success of that hardware.

Is there any plan to contact other vendors (AMD, for example) to
persuade them into following a different path? 

I think AMD was pressured; I don't know how or by whom, into agreeing to
support Treacherous Computing in the first place. And Apple appears to
have switched to the x86 architecture specifically so it could support
Treacherous Computing. So this road looks difficult--I think one would
need to be able to point to a large and organized group of supporters,
in order to overcome the pressure from the other side. The free software
community is large, but it is not organized toward doing this.

What type of clauses do you plan to add to fight "Treacherous
Computing"? 

Nothing we put in free software licenses can block the implementation of
Treacherous Computing inside a computer, just as nothing we put in free
software licenses can prevent the existence of software patents. The
only thing our licenses can affect is whether those threats can pervert
the nature of our software. Thus, we are thinking about a clause
requiring distribution, with the software, of any signature keys
necessary to sign the binary so that it can run and fully utilize the
machine's facilities. This would prevent the perversion of a supposedly
"free" program, which nominally you are allowed to change, except that
modified versions are prevented from functioning. The strategic decision
of whether such a requirement is a good idea is very difficult.
-------------------------------------------
Gnu/linux' s user  353198

___________________________________________________________ 
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam 
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo 
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 