Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

* Finished Chapter 1

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-28 18:44:16 +00:00
parent f05ce6c657
commit 9ee93e6f8a
2 changed files with 332 additions and 18 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
GPL-Business/ChangeLog
View file

@ -1,8 +1,23 @@
2003-05-28 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>
* gpl-business.tex (section{An Ecosystem of Equality}): Started
section.
(subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}): Wrote subsection.
(subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}): Wrote subsection.
(subsection{Law Analogy}): Wrote subsection.
2003-05-27 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>
* gpl-business.tex (section{How Does Software Become Free?}):
Finished section.
(subsection{Public Domain Software}): Wrote section.
2003-05-26 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>
* gpl-business.tex (subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}):
Wrote subsection.
(subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}): Wrote subsection.
(section{How Does Software Become Free?}): Started section.
2003-05-25 Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@fsf.org>

335
GPL-Business/gpl-business.tex
View file

@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
%\pagestyle{empty}
@ -58,6 +59,9 @@ any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
\end{titlepage}
\pagestyle{plain}
\pagenumbering{roman}
\begin{abstract}
This tutorial gives a section-by-section explanation of the most popular
@ -79,7 +83,7 @@ are not well versed in the details of copyright law. Presented by a
software developer and manager, this tutorial informs those who wish to
have a deeper understanding of how the GNU GPL uses copyright law to
protect software freedom and to assist in the formation of Free Software
businesses, and of the organizatinoal motivations behind the GNU GPL.
businesses, and of the organizational motivations behind the GNU GPL.
Upon completion of the tutorial, successful attendees can expect to have
learned the following:
@ -105,11 +109,18 @@ learned the following:
\end{abstract}
\tableofcontents
\pagebreak
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{What Is Free Software?}
Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
``GNU GPL'' or just ``GPL'') must begin by first considering the broader
world of ``Free Software''. The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
\defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
world of Free Software. The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
(FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
@ -119,6 +130,7 @@ The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
designed to defend and uphold these principles.
\section{The Free Software Definition}
\label{Free Software Definition}
The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}.
@ -161,18 +173,18 @@ Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source
code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.
One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no
restrictions on how these freedoms can be excercised. Specifically, users
restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised. Specifically, users
and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or
commercially. Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial
activies but prohibit them for commercial activites are considered
activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
non-Free.
In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''. Typically, the
term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangably with
term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
``non-Free Software''. Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
Software'' to refer to non-commercial software that restricts freedom
(such as ``shareware'') and ``propreitary software'' to refer to
(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
@ -191,7 +203,7 @@ restricted.
It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements
(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.
For example, some versions of Microsoft's Frontpage software prohbit use
For example, some versions of Microsoft's Frontpage software prohibit use
of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for
Microsoft. Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to
use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.
@ -206,10 +218,10 @@ freedom cannot be properly exercised.
Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.
However, this freedom is essential to users who are not programmers.
Users must have the right to engage in a non-commercial enviornment of
Users must have the right to engage in a non-commercial environment of
finding help with the software (as often happens on email lists and in
users groups). This means they must have the freedom to recruit
programmers who might altrusitcally assist them to modify their software.
programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential. Each user, or
group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish on a
@ -221,13 +233,13 @@ to commission software modification.
\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways. Free Software
advocates work to eliminate fundamental ethical delimema of the software
advocates work to eliminate fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
using). Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
altruistic sharing of software amoung friends.
altruistic sharing of software among friends.
The commercial enviornment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free
Software. Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone. Those who
redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively
@ -238,7 +250,7 @@ It is true that many people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
tends to keep prices low and reasonable. However, if someone is willing
to pay a billion dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such
a sale is completely permited.
a sale is completely permitted.
Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
distribution. For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate
@ -261,18 +273,18 @@ freedom to market their services as improvers of Free Software. All forms
of such service marketing must be equally available to all.
For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
permitted. Companies and individuals can offer thesmelves as ``the place
permitted. Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
to call'' when software fails or does not function properly. For such a
service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service must have the
right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
problems that are beyond mere user error.
Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of
Free Software. Most Free Software programs have a so-called ``canonoical
Free Software. Most Free Software programs have a so-called ``canonical
version'' that is made available from the primary developers of the
software. Hoewver, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork''
software. However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork''
--- that is, make available non-trivial modified versions of the software
on a permenant or semi-permenant basis. Such freedom is central to
on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. Such freedom is central to
vibrant developer and user interaction.
Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
@ -286,6 +298,290 @@ that serves that sub-community.
\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
The last section set forth the freedoms and rights are respected by Free
Software. It presupposed, however, that such software exists. This
section discusses how Free Software comes into existence. But first, it
addresses how software can be non-free in the first place.
Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright
law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification. Patents
and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-free,
and one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software.
However, the primary control mechanism for software is copyright.}.
Copyright law, with respect to software governs copying, modifying, and
redistributing that software\footnote{Copyright law in general also
governs ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no
generally agreed definition for public performance of software and
version 2 of the GPL does not govern public performance.}. By law, the
copyright holder (aka the author) of the work controls how others my copy,
modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary software, these
controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition, proprietary
software distributors further impede modification in a practical sense by
distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the software
secret.
Copyright law is a construction. In the USA, the Constitution permits,
but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal
legislation. Software, since it is tangible expression of an idea, is
thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
Software. In an imaginary world, which has no copyright, the rules would
be different. In this world, when you received a copy of a program's
source code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from
sharing it with others, making modifications, or redistributing those
modified versions\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our
modern patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}.
Software in the real world is copyrighted by default, and that default
legal system does exist. However, it is possible to move software out of
the domain of the copyright system. A copyright holder is always
permitted to \defn{disclaim} their copyright. If copyright is disclaimed,
the software is not governed by copyright law. Software not governed by
copyright is in the ``public domain''.
\subsection{Public Domain Software}
An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright
interest on the work. In the USA and other countries that have signed the
Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by
the author when (s)he ``fixes the software into a tangible medium''. In
the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the
software into a file.
However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the
copyright laws. Once this is done, the software is in the public domain
--- it is no longer covered by copyright. Since it is copyright law that
allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,
modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the
copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free
Software.
Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave an
expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
controls on the work. The law gave her controls over the work, and she
has chosen to waive those controls. Software in the public domain is
absent copyright and absent a license. The software freedoms discussed in
Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
legal system in play to take them away.
\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,
some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in that of FSF and the GNU
Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
who receive the canonical versions on which the original author disclaimed
copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any non-trivial
modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to
proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software
feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because
fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
commons, since they know that any of their competitors can proprietarize
their enhancements. Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the
public domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem. FSF was in fact
originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
developers of the kernel named Linux has chosen to follow this paradigm.
Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
the software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants
freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom from anyone else along
the distribution and modification chains.
Copyleft is a general concept. Much like ideas for what a computer might
do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is often enough to explain the
concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
true implementation in legal text must exist. The GPL is the primary
implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
\section{An Ecosystem of Equality}
The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'
rights. This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both
business and non-commercial users.
\subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}
A GPL'ed code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
community. Traditionally, volunteers, operating non-commercially out of
keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
of a GPL'ed system. Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
Internet, any useful GPL'ed system is adopted quickly by non-commercial
users.
Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
gives birth to a thriving non-commercial community. Users and developers
begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
commons. Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
passing along the rights granted by GPL, so they are assured that every
one of their users is treated equally.
Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'ed distribution,
nearly every GPL'ed package in existence has a vibrant non-commercial user
and developer base.
\subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
By the same token, nearly all established GPL'ed software systems have a
vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'ed system that has gained
wide adoption from non-commercial users and developers eventually begins
to fuel a commercial system around that software.
For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments. However, very
soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of
ownership by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in Windows
file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of the first
people hired to do such work were those same two graduate students who
originally developed the software.
The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work. They knew
that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
the canonical version. Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
Samba, so the non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are
safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
protected.
Commercial developers also work in concert with non-commercial developers.
Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to contribute to
Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it. Priorities change when a
client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
canonical version. Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
Free Software'' or because the problem interest them. When they get good
at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
become commercial developers of the software themselves.
No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
everyone is on equal ground. The GPL protects rights of the commercial
and non-commercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,
because it is a level playing field for all.
\subsection{Law Analogy}
In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
Software. He argues that the laws of a Free society must be protected
much like the GPL protects software. So that I might do true justice to
Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
\begin{quotation}
A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think
about the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their
clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
can stand consistently with a constitution.
All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments are
transparent (which is different from saying they are good) and the
reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be
copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The ``source code''
for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The
source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. The
lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is
not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
the earlier.
We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
``free.'' Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
efficient application. Instead, openness and transparency are the
constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software code should
be no less.
Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more
productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products created.
Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built upon the work
that went before. This adding and changing is what creativity always is.
And a free society is one that assures that its most important resources
remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
\copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. Verbatim copying of this quotation
in its entirety is permitted provided this notice is preserved.}
\end{quotation}
In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
infrastructure. Few defend themselves in court or write their own briefs
(even though they legally permitted to do so) because everyone would
prefer to have an expert do that job.
The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts. It
functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software
economy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Business Models, Internal Use, and Compliance}
\appendix
@ -707,3 +1003,6 @@ with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
General Public License instead of this License.
\end{document}
% LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision
% LocalWords: Yoyodyne