Copyleft/guide Changeset - 90f1aab65675

...

@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ and developer base.

\subsection{The Commercial Community}

By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a

vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained

vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained

wide adoption from noncommercial users and developers eventually begins

to fuel a commercial system around that software.

...

@@ -581,34 +581,34 @@ it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments\footnote{See

    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}.  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

Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of

running such servers by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in

Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of

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 noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two

fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work. They knew

fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd 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 standard version. Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize

Samba, so the noncommercial 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 noncommercial

developers. Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to

developers.  Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to

contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid work doing it.

Priorities change when a client is in the mix, but all the code is

contributed back to the standard version. Meanwhile, many other

contributed back to the standard version.  Meanwhile, many other

individuals have gotten involved noncommercially as developers,

because they want to ``cut their teeth on Free Software,'' or because

the problems interest them. When they get good at it, perhaps they

the problems 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

everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial

and noncommercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,

because it is a level playing field for all.

...

@@ -617,47 +617,47 @@ because it is a level playing field for all.

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

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

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

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

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

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''

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

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

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

without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to

the earlier.

We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and

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.

...

@@ -666,31 +666,31 @@ 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

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

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

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

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

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. It is

licensed under the terms of

\texttt{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution

\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution

License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative

Commons.}

\end{quotation}

In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal

infrastructure. Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their

infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their

own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because

everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.

The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts. It

The Free Software economy is a market 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 noncommercial Free Software