File diff 135533708853 → 62a0c3b4fb65
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -328,116 +328,116 @@ software (For details of this in the USA, see
 
  ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
 
  definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do
 
  not govern public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
 
jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls
 
how others may 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 is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
 
Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
 
federal legislation.  Software, since it is ``an original works of authorship
 
fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...  from which they can be
 
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
 
aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
 
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{USC 17 \S 102}), 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 with 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, as well as
 
  technical measures, such as binary-only distribution, that impeded such activity.}
 

	
 
Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is
 
automatically covered by that legal system.  However, it is possible
 
to move software out of the domain of the copyright system.  A
 
copyright holder can often \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}
 
% FIXME: this section needs more improvements to make it clear that public
 
% domain dedication is difficult, if not impossible.
 
% Karen suggests that talking about USA government software being public
 
% domain might make sense here.
 
Theoretically, 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 she ``fixes the software into a tangible
 
medium.''  In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
 
of the software into a file.
 

	
 
Imagine if an author can truly 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.
 
Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default control of copyright
 
law.  If so, the software is in the public domain -- no longer covered by
 
copyright.  Since copyright law is the construction allowing for most
 
restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
 
redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
 
yields software freedom for its users.
 

	
 
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
 
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
 
By contrast, the copyright holders instead renounced copyright controls on
 
the work.  The law gave the copyright holder exclusive controls over the
 
work, and they chose 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 those 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 standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
 
copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial
 
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. 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 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. Many, including the
 
developers of the kernel named Linux, have 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 to 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 used 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.