[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Richard M Stallman]

    How could 
    open source software licences (GNU) otherwise be properly protected?

If you are talking about the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), it
is misleading to describe it as an "open source" license.  I wrote it
to uphold the ethical ideals of the free software movement, ideals
which the open source camp rejects.  People who try to analyze the GNU
GPL in terms of the purely practical ideas of open source cannot
possibly understand its motivations.  To understand it, you must think
of it as a free software license.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for more explanation.

     why 
    wouldn't he steal Linux and add some bells and whistles

If you are talking about the GNU/Linux operating system, rather than
Linux which is Torvalds' kernel, please note that it contains programs
under many different licenses.  The GNU GPL is used on the majority of
components in GNU/Linux, but some have other licenses.


As regards how shortening the term of copyright would affect free
software licenses, here's an explanation of how the Pirate Party
should change its program so as not to have an unintended harmful
effect on free software.


		Perfecting the Pirate Party Platform


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 peer-to-peer
sharing, and shortening of copyright to a five-year period.  Five
years after publication, any published work would go into the public
domain.

I support these changes, in general; but they backfire ironically in
the special case of free software.

The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use
copyright law in order to assure 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.

How would the Pirate Party's platform affect free software?  After five
years, copylefted free software 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?

Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright,
and the users don't have the source code.  So what would be the effect
of terminating its copyright after 5 years?  Users still would not
have the source code.  Users redistribiting unauthorized copies could
no longer be sued for copyright infringement, only for violating the
contract.  In other words, it would be no real change.  The program
could even have a time bomb in it to stop working after 5 years.

Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software
developers the use of GPL-covered source code, but it would not give
us the use of proprietary source code.  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.

Once the 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.  However, the proposal met with resistance from
the Pirate Party's leaders, who objected to the idea of a special
longer copyright for certain kinds of works.  I don't particularly
like that solution either.

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.  Such a law would
result in a net increase in what free software can do, so it would
advance our ultimate goal: liberating software users.  The GNU GPL is
a means to that goal too.  It is a very effective means, but it isn't
the only possible one.

My proposal to the Pirate Party is to require proprietary software
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, we would eliminate the proprietary
software's unofficial exception.  Either way, the result is fair.  If
the state ensures that no laws or contracts can block the free use of
that public domain code once available, the result will be a growing
free software commons.