Summary for Readings on May 12th

The theme of reading set on May 12th is on "Licensing".

[1] defines "freedom" of free software in depth, and software must be qualified with the following essential freedoms to be free:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The above four freedoms [1] are applied software in binary or executable forms for the user's benefits over the programmer's.

One interesting notion is that free software can be applied for commercial use, and the programmer is allowed to sell copies of their works. At the end of [1], FSF still shows concern that there are people who would misinterpret free software in FSF's respective. Personally, I think the general public is not to be blame for misinterpret free in term of monetary value, since people would consider something "free" as being given away with no monetary value. Perhaps, there would be a better term to replace "free" in order to explain free software principles to the general public in a better way.

[2] begins with a fictional story in the future where people are not allowed to share books and their actions on computers are monitored. Through this story, Stallman is trying to convincing readers that our society is gradually heading to that direction and becoming the reality as in the story. He supports his argument by stating laws have been proposed to restrict the user's right to read globally:

"In the US, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) established the legal basis to restrict the reading and lending of computerized books (and other works as well). The European Union imposed similar restrictions in a 2001 copyright directive. In France, under the DADVSI law adopted in 2006, mere possession of a copy of DeCSS, the free program to decrypt video on a DVD, is a crime."

In addition, Microsoft keeps signatures and encryption keys of personal computers with Vista in the effort of control these personal computers. The scheme was referred by Stallman as "treacherous computing" [2]. Microsoft is doing this to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) on Vista users. To fight back, Stallman established the DefectiveByDesign.org campaign.

One interesting note is that SPA is the abbreviation of Software Protection Authority in Stallman's fictional story while it is actually referring to Software Publisher's Association in reality. Stallaman describes SPA, both in his story and in reality, as the security police entity which is threatening user's freedom to use his computer.

[3] states the original purpose of copyright is to benefit users, not for the sake of authors. Stallman address copyright in US laws as following:

"that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress."

Instead of allowing the authors and publishers to maximize profit by monopolizing their products in the market, Stallman specifies the purpose of copyright which is stated in US Constitution as following:

"...to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works."

The "copyright bargain" decides the benefit is supposed to go to the reading public. However, Stallman has noticed a number of faults regarding the copyright law. The first problem, referred as "striking a balance" error, with copyright law spotted by Stallman is that the US copyright law is not equivalent to the copyright bargain as it is supposed to:

"it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at the root of the government's participation in the copyright bargain."

So, the copywrite law assumes reader's interest is equal to publisher's interest which is not as the same interpretation as it is in the copywrite bargain. The concesequences of copyright law's mis-interpretation places the publisher in a favourable position than it would to readers:

"The copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this burden, ..."

When public pays tax to the government, the government should buy something for the public with the best possible price. In term of copyright policy, Stallman states that the government spends public's freedom in the copyright bargain. Thus, the government should put public's interest on top of publisher's interest.

The second problem is "maximizing one output" means to maximize the number of published works. Stallman introduces the principle of "diminishing returns":

"The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity.

In another words, maximizing publication makes the reader sacrifice most of freedom to encouragement to publication. [Note: this point is quite vague]

The third problem is "maximizing publishers' power" where the publishers make copyright cover every imaginable use of a work. Stallman supports this argument with the following example:

"...Shakespeare borrowed the plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would have been illegal."

Feared by Stallman, the 3 problems in copyright give the publishers more power and control over the readers, even through the copyright is supposed to benefit the readers originally and to serve the public's interest. For example, this result introducing S. 483, a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years. Even Constitution's view has changed to be in favour to the publisher's interests more than the interests of the public. This shows in the meeting of Stallman with Congressman Barney Frank:

"...I (Stallman) asked him, “But is this in the public interest?” His (Frank) response was telling: “Why are you talking about the public interest? These creative people (industry) don't have to give up their rights for the public interest!..."

[4] is about "intellectual property". Intellectual property was first expressed by World Intellectual Property Organization founded in 1967. Stallman describes it as following:

'...to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—into one pot and call it “intellectual property”'

Stallman says intellectual property causes confusion and generalizes about issues that are not relevant to each others.

Both [6] and [7] are relevant to "copyleft". Copyleft is a licensing mechanism to keep GNU software free in the public domain:

"Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom."

Copyleft intends to perform the reversed action of copywight in respect to software freedom:

'Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”'

There are three types of copyleft licenses, namely GPL, LGPL and :

"...the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License ....An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) , applies to a few (but not all) GNU libraries....The GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) is a form of copyleft intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,..."

Through [7], Stallman strongly urges that any improved code of GPL-covered software has be been a free software to be contributed to the community, otherwise it is not released at all. Stallman addresses this point with GNU Objective C example:

"...NeXT initially wanted to make this front end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software."

[8] is about software patent and how it could become a obstacle to software development. The software patents are considered part of "Intellectual Property" [4] which is biased in Stallman's view. Stallman is strongly against lumping copyrights, patent, and trademark altogether to form intellectual property:

"None of them has anything in common with any of the others. Their origins historically are completely separate. The laws were designed independently. They covered different areas of life and activities. The public policy issues they raise are completely unrelated."

To be specific, Stallman differentiates copyrights and patents:

"Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work. Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the use of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by a patent office in response to an application."

There are 3 approaches Stallman has proposed to deal with patent:

1. Avoiding the patent
2. Licensing the patent
3. Overturning a patent in court

To summarize [8], Stallman is saying that the patent office is not professional enough at patenting. By patenting a idea which is too general in a specific field, this would block others to improve and advance that idea since people require to get license from the patent holder.


REFERENCE
[1] Free Software Definition (FSF)
[2] The Right to Read (FSF)
[3] Misinterpreting Copyright (FSF)
[4] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? (FSF)
[5] Words to Avoid (FSF)
[6] What is Copyleft? (FSF)
[7] Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism (FSF)
[8] The Danger of Software Patents (FSF)