diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index e13d478ea3307b973a9092665661bc8e5514130b..b2b364b37f592e8d2294e6944132360c5815b410 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -3787,197 +3787,6 @@ possibility of such damages.} That's all there is to it! -\chapter{GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption} - -\textbf{\textit{\large{by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen}}} - -\smallskip - -The GNU General Public License (``the GPL'') has remained -unmodified, at version level 2, since 1991. This is extraordinary -longevity for any widely-employed legal instrument. The durability of -the GPL is even more surprising when one takes into account the -differences between the free software movement at the time of version -2's release and the situation prevailing in 2005. - -Richard M. Stallman, founder of the free software movement and author -of the GNU GPL, released version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice -and collecting developer opinion concerning version 1 of the license, -which had been in use since 1985. There was no formal public comment -process and no significant interim transition period. The Free -Software Foundation immediately relicensed the components of the GNU -Project, which comprised the largest then-existing collection of -copyleft software assets. In Finland, Linus Torvalds adopted GPL -Version 2 for his operating system kernel, called Linux. - -That was then, and this is now. The GPL is employed by tens of -thousands of software projects around the world, of which the Free -Software Foundation's GNU system is a tiny fraction. The GNU system, -when combined with Linus Torvalds' Linux---which has evolved into a -flexible, highly-portable, industry-leading operating system kernel ---- along with Samba, MySQL, and other GPL'd programs, offers superior -reliability and adaptability to Microsoft's operating systems, at -nominal cost. GPL'd software runs on or is embedded in devices -ranging from cellphones, PDAs and home networking appliances to -mainframes and supercomputing clusters. Independent software -developers around the world, as well as every large corporate IT buyer -and seller, and a surprisingly large proportion of individual users, -interact with the GPL. - -During the period since 1991, of course, there has developed a -profusion of free software licenses. But not in the area covered by -the GPL. The ``share and share alike'' or ``copyleft'' aspect of the -GPL is its most important functional characteristic, and those who -want to use a copyleft license for software overwhelmingly use the GPL -rather than inventing their own. - -Updating the GPL is therefore a very different task in 2005 than it -was in 1991. The substantive reasons for revision, and the likely -nature of those changes, are subject matter for another essay. At -present we would like to concentrate on the institutional, procedural -aspects of changing the license. Those are complicated by the fact -that the GPL serves four distinct purposes. - -\section*{The GPL is a Worldwide Copyright License} - -As a legal document, the GPL serves a purpose that most legal drafters -would do anything possible to avoid: it licenses copyrighted material -for modification and redistribution in every one of the world's -systems of copyright law. In general, publishers don't use worldwide -copyright licenses; for each system in which their works are -distributed, licensing arrangements tailored to local legal -requirements are used. Publishers rarely license redistribution of -modified or derivative works; when they do so, those licenses are -tailored to the specific setting, factual and legal. But free -software requires legal arrangements that permit copyrighted works to -follow arbitrary trajectories, in both geographic and genetic terms. -Modified versions of free software works are distributed from hand to -hand across borders in a pattern that no copyright holder could -possibly trace. - -GPL version 2 performed the task of globalization relatively well, -because its design was elegantly limited to a minimum set of copyright -principles that signatories to the Berne Convention must offer, in one -form or another, in their national legislation. But GPL2 was a -license constructed by one US layman and his lawyers, largely -concerned with US law. To the extent possible, and without any -fundamental changes, GPL3 should ease internationalization -difficulties, more fully approximating the otherwise unsought ideal of -the global copyright license. - -\section*{The GPL is the Code of Conduct for Free Software Distributors} - -Beyond the legal permission that the GPL extends to those who wish to -copy, modify, and share free software, the GPL also embodies a code of -industry conduct with respect to the practices by which free software -is distributed. Section 3, which explains how to make source code -available as required under the license, affects product packaging -decisions for those who embed free software in appliances, as well as -those who distribute software collections that include both free and -unfree software. Section 7, which concerns the effect of licenses, -judgments, and other compulsory legal interventions incompatible with -the GPL on the behavior of software distributors, affects patent -licensing arrangements in connection with industry standards. And so -on, through a range of interactions between the requirements of the -license and evolving practices in the vending of both hardware and -software. - -The Free Software Foundation, through its maintenance and enforcement -of the GPL, has contributed to the evolution of industry behavior -patterns beyond its influence as a maker of software. In revising the -GPL, the Foundation is inevitably engaged in altering the rules of the -road for enterprises and market participants of many different kinds, -with different fundamental interests and radically different levels of -market power. The process of drafting and adopting changes to the -license must thus approximate standard-setting, or ``best practices'' -definition, as well as copyright license drafting. - -\section*{The GPL is the Constitution of the Free Software Movement} - -The Free Software Foundation has never been reluctant to point out -that its goals are primarily social and political, not technical or -economic. The Foundation believes that free software---that is, -software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, -redistributed and shared by its users---is the only ethically -satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific -research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of -mathematics, physics, or biology. The Foundation, and those who -support its broader work, regard free software as an essential step in -a social movement for freer access to knowledge, freer access to -facilities of communication, and a more deeply participatory culture, -open to human beings with less regard to existing distributions of -wealth and social power. The free software movement has taken -advantage of the social conditions of its time to found its program on -the creation of vast new wealth, through new systems of cooperation, -which can in turn be shared in order to further the creation of new -wealth, in a positive feedback loop. - -This program is not, of course, universally shared by all the parties -who benefit from the exploitation of the new wealth created by free -software. The free software movement has never objected to the -indirect benefits accruing to those who differ from the movement's -goals: one of the powerful lessons the movement has learned from -previous aspects of the long-duration Western movement for freedom of -expression is the value of working with, rather than against, -conventional economic interests and concerns. But the movement's own -goals cannot be subordinated to the economic interests of our friends -and allies in industry, let alone those who occasionally contribute -solely for reasons of their own. Changes to the GPL, for whatever -reason they are undertaken, must not undermine the underlying movement -for freer exchange of knowledge. To the extent that the movement has -identified technological or legal measures likely to be harmful to -freedom, such as ``trusted computing'' or a broadening of the scope of -patent law, the GPL needs to address those issues from a perspective -of political principle and the needs of the movement, not from primary -regard for the industrial or commercial consequences. - -\section*{The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M.\ Stallman} - -Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle -of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's -acumen or insight. But it is safe to say that there is no other -copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the -achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure. Mr.\ -Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its -integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other -author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, -which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the -process of its modification. - -\section*{Conclusion} - -The GPL serves, and must continue to serve, multiple purposes. Those -purposes are fundamentally diverse, and they inevitably conflict. -Development of GPL version 3 has been an ongoing process within the -Free Software Foundation; we, along with our colleagues, have never -stopped considering possible modifications. We have consulted, -formally and informally, a very broad array of participants in the -free software community, from industry, the academy, and the garage. -Those conversations have occurred in many countries and several -languages, over almost two decades, as the technology of software -development and distribution changed around us. - -When a GPLv3 discussion draft is released, the pace of that -conversation will change, as a particular proposal becomes the -centerpiece. The Foundation will, before it emits a first discussion -draft, publicize the process by which it intends to gather opinion and -suggestions. The Free Software Foundation recognizes that the -reversioning of the GPL is a crucial moment in the evolution of the -free software community, and the Foundation intends to meet its -responsibilities to the makers, distributors and users of free -software. In doing so, we hope to hear all relevant points of view, -and to make decisions that reflect the many disparate purposes that -the license must serve. Our primary concern remains, as it has been -from the beginning, the creation and protection of freedom. We -recognize that the best protection of freedom is a growing and vital -community of the free. We will use the process of public discussion -of GPL3 drafts to support and nurture the community of the free. -Proprietary culture imposes both technology and license terms; free -software means allowing people to understand, experiment and modify -software, as well as getting involved in the discussion of license -terms, so that everyone's ideas can contribute to the common good, and -the development of each contributes to the development of all. - % ===================================================================== % END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION % =====================================================================