diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_29.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_29.html | 259 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 259 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_29.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_29.html deleted file mode 100644 index a731547..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_29.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,259 +0,0 @@ -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> - - - <a name="Why-Upgrade-to-GPLv3"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 29. Why Upgrade to GPLv3 - </h1> - <a name="index-patents_002c-GPL-version-3-and-4"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-version-3_002c-why-upgrade-to"> - </a> - <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-upgrade-to-GPL-version-3"> - </a> - <p> - Version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has been released, enabling free software packages to upgrade from GPL version 2. This article explains why upgrading the license is important. - </p> - <p> - First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL -version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if -some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These -two licenses are incompatible, but that isn’t a fundamental problem. - </p> - <a name="index-copyleft_002c-GPL-and-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-version-3_002c-compatibility"> - </a> - <p> - When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is -no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a -single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft -licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license -in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license -too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a -GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn’t do the job, -because GPLv2 would need a similar clause. - </p> - <p> - Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to -link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single -program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and -GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For -instance, the - <a name="index-TeX-4"> - </a> - TeX license and the - <a name="index-Apache-License"> - </a> - Apache license are incompatible with -GPLv2, but that doesn’t stop us from running TeX and - <a name="index-Apache"> - </a> - Apache in the -same system with Linux, - <a name="index-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029_002c-GNU-4"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029-4"> - </a> - Bash and - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-5"> - </a> - GCC. This is because they are all -separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while -Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict. - </p> - <p> - Keeping a program under GPLv2 won’t create problems. The reason to -migrate is because of the existing problems that GPLv3 will address. - </p> - <a name="index-tivoization-2"> - </a> - <p> - One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization -means certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) -contain - <a name="index-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-3"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-3"> - </a> - GPL-covered software that you can’t effectively change, because the -appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual -motive for tivoization is that the software has features the -manufacturer knows people will want to change, and aims -to stop people from changing them. The manufacturers of -these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software -provides, but they don’t let you do likewise. - </p> - <p> - Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should -suffice to keep nasty features to a low level. Perhaps competition -alone would avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut -down between 1pm and 5pm every Tuesday,” but even so, a choice of -masters isn’t freedom. Freedom means - <em> - you - </em> - control what your software -does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides -for you. - </p> - <p> - In the crucial area of - <a name="index-DRM_002c-GPL-version-3-and"> - </a> - <a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-3"> - </a> - <a name="index-DMCA_002c-GPL-version-3-and"> - </a> - Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—nasty features -designed to restrict your use of the data in your -computer—competition is no help, because relevant competition is -forbidden. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar -laws, it is illegal, in the US and many other countries, to distribute -DVD players unless they restrict the user according to the official -rules of the DVD conspiracy (its web site is - <a href="http://www.dvdcca.org/"> - http://www.dvdcca.org/ - </a> - , -but the rules do not seem to be published there). The public can’t -reject DRM by buying non-DRM players because none are available. No -matter how many products you can choose from, they all have equivalent -digital handcuffs. - </p> - <p> - GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn’t forbid -DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive -functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it -makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the -distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they -deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids -tivoization. - </p> - <p> - The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers is to be expected, even occasionally. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization -only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and -organizations. - <a name="index-tivoization-3"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="index-Novell-_0028see-also-patents_002c-GPL_002c-and-Microsoft_0029"> - </a> - <a name="index-patents_002c-Novell_002dMicrosoft-pact"> - </a> - <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-Novell_002dMicrosoft-pact"> - </a> - <a name="index-GPL_002c-version-3_002c-limited-patent-protection"> - </a> - <p> - Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the -Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of -patents to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running -GNU/Linux, and made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers -rather limited protection from Microsoft patents to Novell’s customers. - </p> - <p> - Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 -is designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited -patent protection to the whole community. In order to take advantage -of this protection, programs need to use GPLv3. - </p> - <p> - Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to -avoid those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don’t get a “next -time.” Releasing a program under GPL version 3 protects it from -Microsoft’s future attempts to make redistributors collect Microsoft -royalties from the program’s users. - </p> - <p> - GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from -the program’s contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely -on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which -provided them a copy won’t sue them, or the people they redistribute -copies to, for patent infringement. - </p> - <p> - The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might -have liked. Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes -GPL-covered code give up all software patents, along with everyone -who does not redistribute GPL-covered code, because there should be -no software patents. Software patents are a -vicious and absurd system that puts all software developers in danger -of being sued by companies they have never heard of, as well as by all -the megacorporations in the field. Large programs typically combine -thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if they implement ideas -covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations collect thousands of -patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. Patents -already obstruct free software development. - </p> - <p> - The only way to make software development safe is to abolish software -patents, and we aim to achieve this some day. But we cannot do this -through a software license. Any program, free or not, can be killed -by a software patent in the hands of an unrelated party, and the -program’s license cannot prevent that. Only court decisions or -changes in patent law can make software development safe from patents. -If we tried to do this with GPLv3, it would fail. - </p> - <p> - Therefore, GPLv3 seeks to limit and channel the danger. In -particular, we have tried to save free software from a fate worse than -death: to be made effectively proprietary, through patents. The -explicit patent license of GPLv3 makes sure companies that use the GPL -to give users the four freedoms cannot turn around and use their -patents to tell some users, “That doesn’t include you.” -It also stops them from colluding with other patent holders to do this. - </p> - <a name="index-BitTorrent"> - </a> - <a name="index-Apache-License-1"> - </a> - <p> - Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler -termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache -license. All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade. - </p> - <p> - Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to -users’ freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is -important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to -GPLv4 if and when we write one. - </p> - <p> - One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any -later version.” Another way is for all the contributors to a program -to state a proxy who can decide on upgrading to future GPL versions. -The third way is for all the contributors to assign copyright to one -designated copyright holder, who will be in a position to upgrade the -license version. One way or another, programs should provide this -flexibility for future GPL versions. - <a name="index-GPL_002c-version-3_002c-why-upgrade-to-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-upgrade-to-GPL-version-3-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-patents_002c-GPL-version-3-and-5"> - </a> - </p> - <hr size="2"/> - |