diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html | 176 |
1 files changed, 176 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ce51908 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/pirate-party.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p> + +<blockquote> +<p> +Note: each Pirate Party has its own platform. They all call for +reducing copyright power, but the specifics vary. This issue may +not apply to the other parties' positions. +</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the +launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce +copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the +prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of +noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright +for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after +publication, any published work would go into the public domain.</p> + +<p>I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination +chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special +case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free +software, but that's what would happen.</p> + +<p>The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use +copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits +everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. +Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. +And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source +code.</p> + +<p>How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted +free software? After five years, its source code would go into the +public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to +include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?</p> + +<p>Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, +and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits +noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the +users, not having the source code, do not control what the program +does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your +freedom and give the developer control over you.</p> + +<p>So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright +after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source +code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the +source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The +program could even have a “time bomb” in it to make it +stop working after 5 years, in which case the “public +domain” copies would not run at all.</p> + +<p>Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software +developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it +would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source +code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get +the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and +object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary +software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year +copyright — one that free software does not share.</p> + +<p>We also use copyright to partially deflect the danger of software +patents. We cannot make our programs safe from them — no +program is ever safe from software patents in a country which allows +them — but at least we prevent them from being used to make the +program effectively nonfree. The Swedish Pirate Party proposes to +abolish software patents, and if that is done, this issue would go +away. But until that is achieved, we must not lose our only defense +for protection from patents.</p> + +<p>Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free +software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special +rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free +software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit +exception for free software would counterbalance the effective +exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be +enough, I think. However, the proposal met with resistance from the +Pirate Party's leaders, who objected to the idea of a longer copyright +for a special case.</p> + +<p>I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source +code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the +same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, +copyleft is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. +And I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.</p> + +<p>So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary +software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are +released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the +public domain after 5 years. Rather than making free software an +official exception to the 5-year copyright rule, this would eliminate +proprietary software's unofficial exception. Either way, the result +is fair.</p> + +<p>A Pirate Party supporter proposed a more general variant of the +first suggestion: a general scheme to make copyright last longer as +the public is granted more freedoms in using the work. The advantage +of this is that free software becomes part of a general pattern of +varying copyright term, rather than a lone exception.</p> + +<p>I'd prefer the escrow solution, but any of these methods would +avoid a prejudicial effect specifically against free software. There +may be other solutions that would also do the job. One way or +another, the Pirate Party of Sweden should avoid placing a handicap on +a movement to defend the public from marauding giants.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2009 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:34 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |