Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [discuss] Open source software News

[Roger Leigh]

Timothy Baldwin <address@hidden> writes:

> On Saturday 13 March 2004 07:55, Tom Yates wrote:
>
>> Not only are GPL and Crown Copyright *not* self-contradictory, copyright
>> is required in order for the GPL to apply.
>>
>> I don't want to seem deliberately picky, but I think it's worth making the
>> point that free software licences *require* a working copyright system in
>> order to function.
>
> But Free Software licences are only needed whilst a significant proportion of 
> software producers want to restrict our freedoms, they have the means to do 
> so (eg copyright law, contracts, and patents), and there is nothing stopping 
> them doing so (eg a copyleft law).

Such a "copyleft law" would be a removal of freedom.  If one had no
choice but to produce free software, one would have lost the freedom
to licence my copyrighted works as one chose.  And having the *choice*
to licence my work under free or proprietary licences is very
important: the law should not *force* one to do either.  I would
probably be less inclined to write free software under such a system:
things are always less enjoyable when one is forced to do them.

Remember that copyright law extends to much more than software, such
as writing, and I don't necessarily believe these should be free
(unless the author *chooses* them to be free).

>> A lot of people, particularly laymen, misunderstand 
>> that point and I think that's one of the most common causes of the
>> accusation of "socialism" that we seem to have to defend against on a
>> regular basis.
>
> Free software is socialistic,

Really?  It might look that way if you are a socialist, but I don't
agree with you.

> being the abolition of property relations over computer software,

I don't think so.  I retain the copyright on all the contributions I
have made to free software (other than those assigned to the FSF,
which IIRC assigns it back reciprocally), and I retain the right to do
whatever I like with them, including relicensing if I so wish.  I
personally find it important to own my own work, and I don't want this
right to be removed.

I find freedom in being able to have the source code for all the
programs I run, being able to modify it, and then being able to
redistribute any derived works.  What you are suggesting is removing
quite a lot of my personal freedoms which don't actually gain me
anything in being able to do any of the above.  Have a read of the
Debian Free Software Guidelines (below) and then please explain what
the "abolition of property relations" has to do with them.  (I regard
the DFSG as my perferred definition of free software.)


,----[ The Debian Free Software Guidelines ]
| 
|   1. Free Redistribution
| 
|      The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
|      selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
|      software distribution containing programs from several different
|      sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
|      sale.
| 
|   2. Source Code
| 
|      The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
|      source code as well as compiled form.
| 
|   3. Derived Works
| 
|      The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
|      them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
|      original software.
| 
|   4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
| 
|      The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
|      form _only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
|      the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
|      The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
|      modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
|      different name or version number from the original software. (This is a
|      compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors to not restrict any
|      files, source or binary, from being modified.)
| 
|   5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
| 
|      The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
|      persons.
| 
|   6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
| 
|      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
|      a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
|      program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
|      research.
| 
|   7. Distribution of License
| 
|      The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
|      program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
|      additional license by those parties.
| 
|   8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
| 
|      The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
|      being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian
|      and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms
|      of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is
|      redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in
|      conjunction with the Debian system.
| 
|   9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
| 
|      The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
|      distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
|      must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
|      must be free software.
| 
|  10. Example Licenses
| 
|      The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
|      we consider "free".
| 
`----


-- 
Roger Leigh

                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.