Free Software's Rottweiler

I've noted before that FSF is changing; Bruce Byfield has noticed too, and written a good summary of what the new FSF has done in 2006 - and what lies in store:

Looking ahead to 2007, [executive director of the FSF] Brown sees only more of the same activism for the FSF. Both the BadVista and Defective By Design campaigns will continue, and he suggests that other campaigns in the coming year will probably focus on hardware drivers for GNU/Linux and software patents.

"It's going to be a busy year," Brown predicts. "2006 was great, but 2007 is going to be huge."

I can't wait.

Bad Vista, Naughty Vista

The FSF is undergoing a remarkable change at the moment. From being a deeply worthy, but rather dull organisation, it has started to turn into the Rottweiler of the free software world. First there was Defective by Desig, targeting DRM, and now we have the splendidly-named BadVista going for the jugular of Microsoft's new operating system:

"Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care", said FSF program administrator John Sullivan.

Oh, come on John, tell us what you really think.

Is Ryzom.org Going to Be Massive?

A couple of weeks back, I wrote about attempts to take the MMORPG Ryzom open source; now it seems that these have received a big boost from a surprising quarter:

Free Software Foundation announces that it will officially support the Free Ryzom campaign (www.ryzom.org) with a pledge of $60,000.

The Free Ryzom campaign was established to purchase the online game and universe known as Ryzom, property of the now bankrupt Nevrax company, and release the entire game as free software.

As stated by Peter T. Brown, Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation, the FSF considers the Free Ryzom campaign "a high priority project for the free software movement". The aim of the campaign is to publish the source code to the entire game under the terms of the widely-used GPL, as well as publishing all of the artwork and other content under similar free licenses.

The Free Ryzom campaign represents a unique opportunity for the free software movement and the emerging free gaming field. A fully free MMORPG (massively multiplayer online roleplaying game) engine and client/server architecture would allow the development of a myriad of universes, each one evolving its own philosophy and unique content - but sharing in general technical improvements. If successful, this campaign would allow any user to create their own universe and produce their own content based on the Ryzom/Nevrax architecture.

What's particularly interesting about this move is that it confirms how MMORPGs and virtual worlds are moving into the mainstream: after all, the FSF has only limited resources, and would not choose to spend its hard-earned dosh on anything that it does not perceive as pushing forward its cause in a major way.

Samba Dances Towards the GNU GPLv3

According to this story, the Samba project will move to GNU GPLv3 once it's finished. That's a big win for the the FSF, since Samba is undoubtedly one of the most widely-used and highest-profile open source projects.

DRM.info - not about Digital Rights Management

An entire site about Digital Rights Management sounds like some torture from the Spanish Inquisition. But the fact that DRM.info is not a site about Digital Rights Management but Digital Restrictions Management gives a clue as to why its rather more tolerable: it's not exactly for the idea.

It comes from the Free Software Foundation Europe, and is designed presumably to catalogue the deletorious effects of DRM, offering them up as a warning and stimulus to remedial action.

EUPL: European Union Public What?

Here's one that completely passed me by: the European Union Public Licence. There's a very full discussion of why the EU is doing this, as well a rather sceptical comment from the FSF on the subject. But probably the best place to go for a succinct discussion is this one from Matt Asay, which is where I came across the idea in the first place.

Free Software Directory Hits 5000...Almost

The number "5000" may not be a canonical one to celebrate, but the news that the Free Software Directory is about to hit 5000 entries is worth mentioning, if only because it's not as well known as it should be. After all, GNU software forms the backbone of free software, and so the directory is a natural first port of call when you're looking for some cool tools.

Interesting to note, too, the UNESCO co-branding (though I'm sure Richard Stallman wouldn't quite phrase it like that), part of the UN's increasing awareness and involvement with free software.

To DRM or Not to DRM - That is the Question

Digital Rights Management - or Digital Restrictions Management as Richard Stallman likes to call it - is a hot topic at the moment. It figured largely in an interview I did with the FSF's Eben Moglen, which appeared in the Guardian last week. Here's the long version of what he had to say on DRM:

In the year 2006, the home is some real estate with appliances in it. In the year 2016, the home is a digital entertainment and data processing network with some real estate wrapped around it.

The basic question then is, who has the keys to your home? You or the people who deliver movies and pizza? The world that they are thinking about is a world in which they have the keys to your home because the computers that constitute the entertainment and data processing network which is your home work for them, rather than for you.

If you go to a commercial MIS director and you say, Mr VP, I want to put some computers inside your walls, inside your VPN, on which you don't have root, and you can't be sure what's running there. But people outside your enterprise can be absolutely certain what software is running on that device, and they can make it do whatever they think necessary. How do you feel about that? He says, No, thank you. And if we say to him, OK, how about then if we do that instead in your children's house? He says, No, thank there either.

That's what this is about for us. User's rights have no more deep meaning than who controls the computer your kid uses at night when he comes home. Who does that computer work for? Who controls what information goes in and out on that machine? Who controls who's allowed to snoop, about what? Who controls who's allowed to keep tabs, about what? Who controls who's allowed to install and change software there? Those are the question which actually determine who controls the home in 2016.

This stuff seems far away now because, unless you manage computer security for a business, you aren't fully aware of what it is to have computers you don't control part of your network. But 10 years from now, everybody will know.

Against this background, discussions about whether Sun's open source DRM solution DReaM - derived from "DRM/everywhere available", apparently - seem utterly moot. Designing open source DRM is a bit like making armaments in an energy-efficient fashion: it rather misses the point.

DRM serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to control users. It is predicated on the assumption that most people - not just a few - are criminals ready to rip off a company's crown jewels - its "IP" - at a moment's notice unless the equivalent of titanium steel bars are soldered all over the place.

I simply do not accept this. I believe that most people are honest, and the dishonest ones will find other ways to get round DRM (like stealing somebody's money to pay for it).

I believe that I am justified in making a copy of a CD, or a DVD, or a book provided it is for my own use: what that use is, is no business of the company that sold it to me. What I cannot do is make a copy that I sell to someone else for their use: clearly that takes away something from the producers. But if I make a backup copy of a DVD, or a second copy of a CD to play in the car, nobody loses anything, so I am morally quite justified in this course of action.

Until the music and film industries address the fundamental moral issues - and realise that the vast majority of their customers are decent, honest human beings, not crypto-criminals - the DRM debate will proceed on a false basis, and inevitably be largely vacuous. DRM is simply the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

Why the GPL Doesn't Need a Test Case

There was an amusing story in Groklaw yesterday, detailing the sorry end of utterly pointless legal action taken against the Free Software Foundation (FSF) on the grounds that

FSF has conspired with International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc., Novell Inc. and other individuals to “pool and cross license their copyrighted intellectual property in a predatory price fixing scheme.”

It sounded serious, didn't it? Maybe a real threat to free software and hence Civilisation As We Know It? Luckily, as the Groklaw story explains, the judge threw it out in just about every way possible.

However, welcome as this news is, it is important to note that the decision does not provide the long-awaited legal test of the GPL in the US (a court has already ruled favourably on one in Germany). Some people seem to feel that such a test case is needed to establish the legal foundation of the GPL - and with it, most of the free software world. But one person who disagrees, is Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the FSF, and somebody who should know.

As he explained to me a few weeks ago:

The stuff that people do with GPL code – like they modify it, they copy it, they give it to other people – is stuff that under the copyright law you can't do unless you have permission. So if they've got permission, or think they have permission, then the permission they have is the GPL. If they don't have that permission, they have no permission.

So the defendant in a GPL violation situation has always been in an awkward place. I go to him and I say basically, Mr So and So, you're using my client's copyrighted works, without permission, in ways that the copyright law says that you can't do. And if you don't stop, I'm going to go to a judge, and I'm going to say, judge, my copyrighted works, their infringing activity, give me an injunction, give me damages.

At this point, there are two things the defendant can do. He can stand up and say, your honour, he's right, I have no permission at all. But that's not going to lead to a good outcome. Or he can stand up and say, but your honour, I do have permission. My permission is the GPL. At which point, I'm going to say back, well, your honour, that's a nice story, but he's not following the instructions of the GPL, so he doesn't really have the shelter he claims to have.

But note that either way, the one thing he can't say is, your honour, I have this wonderful permission and it's worthless. I have this wonderful permission, and it's invalid, I have this wonderful permission and it's broken.

In other words, there is no situation in which the brokenness or otherwise of the GPL is ever an issue: whichever is true, violators are well and truly stuffed.

(If you're interested in how, against this background, the GPL is enforced in practice, Moglen has written his own lucid explanations.)