Richard Stallman - The Santa of Software

Ha!

RMS Tells It As It Is

Nice to hear it from the, er, horse's mouth:

A patent is an artificial government-imposed monopoly on implementing a certain method or technique. If the method or technique can be implemented by software, so that the patent prohibits the distribution and use of certain programs, we call it a software patent.

What Richard Stallman Wants for Christmas

Bruce Byfield has an interesting write-up of the FSF's High Priority Free Software Projects.

Projects make this list "because there is no adequate free placement," the list's home page explains, which means that "users are continually being seduced into using non-free software."

He concludes with the just observation:

Personally, I find the current list both encouraging and depressing. On the one hand, it is encouraging in that relatively few items affect daily computing for the average user. Moreover, the fact that free software is in reasonable enough shape that it can start thinking beyond immediate needs and worry about such things as the BIOS is a sign of progress.

On the other hand, it is discouraging because progress sometimes seems slow. Video drivers have been a problem for years, and the improvements, while real, are also painfully slow. Similarly, Gnash has not yet developed to the stage where it can rival Adobe's Flash reader, despite several years of work.

Still, over time, the list reflects progress. For instance, since Sun announced last year that it was releasing the Java code, you will no longer find support for free Java implementations listed. By comparing the current list with previous ones, you can get a sense of the gradual evolution of free software, seeing where it's been and where it is heading. For a GNU/Linux watcher, it remains an invaluable resource.

Stallman's Symbolic Victory

Slashdot points to an interesting list of first 100 registered domains. But I doubt whether even the most deep-dyed supporter of free software realises that it was the company behind the very first domain - Symbolics.com - that ultimately led to Richard Stallman to start his GNU project.

Symbolics was in competition with a company called LMI - Lisp Machine Incorporated - set up by a friend of Stallman. As its name implies, it was in the business of making computers running the Lisp programming language, as was Symbolics.

Unfortunately, Symbolics had most of the top LISP programmers, having recruited all Stallman's fellow hackers at MIT's AI Lab, and thereby destroying its community. All, that is, apart from Stallman, who set about single-handedly matching the work of Symbolics and its entire team of coders. This is what he told me for my book Rebel Code in 1999:

Looking back, Stallman says that this period beginning March 1982 saw "absolutely" the most intense coding he had ever done; it probably represents one of the most sustained bouts of one-person programming in history.

"In some ways it was very comfortable because I was doing almost nothing else," he says, "and I would go to sleep whenever I felt sleepy; when I woke up I would go back to coding; and when I felt sleepy again I'd go to sleep again. I had nothing like a daily schedule. I'd sleep probably for a few hours one and a half times a day, and it was wonderful; I felt more awake than I've ever felt. And I got a tremendous amount of work done [and] I did it tremendously efficiently." Although "it was exhilarating sometimes, sometimes it was terribly wearying. It was in some ways terribly lonesome, but I kept doing it [and] I wouldn't let anything stop me," he says."

His eventual failure to match Symbolics' work, which included a completely new system, proved a blessing disguise:

"I decided I didn't want to just continue punishing Symbolics forever. They destroyed my community; now I [wanted] to build something to replace it," he says. "I decided I would develop a free operating system, and in this way lay the foundation for a new community like the one that had been wiped out."

The rest, as they say, is history.

Happy Birthday, GNU/Linux

RMS sends his own characteristic birthday greetings to celebrate the marriage of GNU and Linux:

15 years have passed since the combination of GNU and Linux first made it possible to use a PC in freedom. During that time, we have come a long way. You can even buy a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled from more than one hardware vendor, although the systems they ship are not entirely free software. So what holds us back from total success?

(The answer, in case you were wondering, is "social inertia".)

RMS on Art and Freedom

One of the things I admire about Richard Stallman is the clarity of his thinking. So I was interested to come across these thoughts on art/non-functional works, and why the imperatives for freedom are different here compared to software, say:

If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today in case others need what you need.

Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it. Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years for the copyright to expire, that would be ok.

Interesting, too, the emphasis on sharing:

I don't think that non-functional works must be free. It is enough for them to be sharable.

Sharing the (Old) News About Crowdsharing

"Crowdsharing" has become rather a modish term for what is, after all, an old concept: broad-based collaborative working. It's true that the Internet has made such collaboration far easier and more global, but the idea is fundamentally the same as the one that Richard Stallman had twenty years ago.

Nonetheless, Assignment Zero, a collection of short interviews that dance around the crowdsourcing theme, is well worth wandering through. As well as the big names like Lessig, there's a host of less well-known players who deserve wider recognition for their attempts at applying open source principles in fields beyond software.

Happy Hacking v3

GPLv3 is out.

Of Patent Trolls and Patent Wimps

Who needs patent trolls when you've got patent wimps?

If broad patent reform is a lost cause - as seems probable - Mr. Balsillie and Mr. Zafirovski would be wise to spend their energies bulking up their in-house intellectual property teams and hiring good U.S. lawyers.

...

The Canadians may find that it's easier, and significantly cheaper, to swallow their pride and work within the U.S. system, rather than betting on its demise.

Oh, yeah, right: just like it would have been far more sensible for Richard Stallman just to have accepted the inevitability of closed-source, proprietary software back in the 1980s.

Idiotic patents - and indeed the entire, broken US patent system - have never been under such pressure as now; more and more people are realising that patents do not promote innovation, but actually act as a brake on it. As ideas of openness spread, the present system of intellectual monopolies will gradually be exposed for the sham it is. Any suggestion that people should "swallow their pride" is misguided in the extreme.

Happy Birthday, GCC

It was early June in 1987 when Richard Stallman announced the release of the GNU C compiler version 1.0.

Interesting historical background from Michael Tiemann. It all seems so long ago, now....

The GNU GPL Is Dead - Not

Bizarre:

The FSF should realize by now their influence is waning. Look at the plethora of alternative licenses. Now they’re really hamstringing themselves with Version 3, taking the license further and further from where industry developers are heading. Developers are still the heart of the open source community, and their support is integral to success. Are provisions concerned with patents and digital rights management really what developers want to see addressed? Do they care when Eben Moglen says "the time is rapidly approaching when the GPL is capable of leveling the monopolist to the ground?" Developers demand more freedom, not less. They want clear, practical leadership, not bombast.

Er, well, no, actually: more and more companies are adopting the GNU GPL; indeed, many that started out with dual licensing end up using just the GPL (for the full half-hour argument see hier.) The plethora of other licences represent background noise in comparison.

What's interesting is how, after years in the wilderness, RMS, the GNU GPL and the FSF all find themselves at the centre of so many debates around freedom and openness - not because they've moved there, but because the debates have moved to them.

RMS Supports CC

One of the unfortunate schisms in the open world has just been healed. The Creative Commons' decision to drop the Developing Nations licence means that RMS now supports the initiative:

This is a big step forward, and I can now support CC.

The Joy (and Utility) of FUD

As I've written elsewhere, Microsoft's FUD is more interesting for what it says about the company's deepest fears than for its overt message. This is certainly the case for the latest example:

Coverage of the debate on the new version of the GNU Public License (GPLv3) has focused on the differing opinions among three groups: Project leaders like Linus Torvalds and other top Linux kernel developers; Foundations like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) led by Richard Stallman; and Large Technology Companies such as Sun, HP, IBM, and Novell. While these three groups are certainly all affected by revisions to the GPL, open source developers are also affected, but have been significantly under-represented in the discussion. In this paper, our objective was to give developers a voice and bring their opinions into the debate. What does this fourth constituency think about open source licenses, the upcoming release of the GPLv3, and the philosophies surrounding open source software?

Actually, I lied: the results in this particular case, although predictable, are so hilarious that they deserve wider airing:

Thus our results suggest the actions of the FSF may only be favored by approximately 10% of the broader community and leads us to ask, should a committee be created with a charter to create and revise open source licenses using a governance model similar to that of the open source development model? Is it contrary to the spirit of the open source community, which relies on the wisdom and view of the masses, to have the governance of licenses controlled by a few individuals whose views run contrary to the objectives of potentially 90% of the people affected by their actions, especially when the community members are the very creators and developers of the software under discussion?

Hello, people: those "few individuals" you are talking about are essentially Richard Stallman, as in Richard Stallman who single-handedly started this whole thing, fought most of the key battles, and even wrote some of the most important code, alone. And you're questioning his right to revise the licence that he - as in Richard Stallman - devised and then gave to the world?

But of course the main takeaway from this is that Microsoft is really, really worried by precisely those new provisions in GPLv3 that are designed to limit its ability to subvert free software, to the extent that it would even contemplate publishing a sponsored report of this kind based on - wait for it - a massive 34 replies out of 332 requests; talk about "few individuals".

Thanks for the info, chaps.

An OGGly Duckling?

One of the things I love about Richard Stallman's crusade for freedom is that it is so uncompromising. This means that it tends to espouse strict, unimpeachable positions that may not be totally practical (which he would doubtless say is irrelevant).

A case in point is the new PlayOGG campaign, which encourages people to ditch MP3 files and use the OGG standard instead. Now, I yield to none in my admiration for OGG, but I really can't see this happening. Moreover, it's not long until the troublesome patents on MP3 expire anyway, so the whole question will become moot.

GPLv3: Thrice the Brindled Cat Hath Mewed

Judging by the some articles, everything is now sweetness and light regarding GNU GPLv3, with those big buddies Richard and Linus gazing langorously in each other's (metaphorical) eye.

But someone sees things a little differently:

Last night, I read the last draft of GPLv3 on my cell phone during dinner in Orlando. I went looking for the provision they had in the last draft, the one that closes the GPLv2 ASP loophole that forced me to create HPL. In a nutshell, it is the ability of running GPLv2 software as a service (SaaS) without returning any changes to the community, because distribution of software as a service might not technically be considered distribution of software (therefore circumventing the copyleft clause that made open source what it is today). That is what Google does, making gazillions of dollars thanks to Linux and open source but keeping its secret sauce concealed from the rest of the world (but contributing in many other ways, therefore cleaning its conscience, I guess).

The provision is not there. Gone. They dropped the ball. Actually, it has been made very clear that the ASP loophole is not a loophole anymore. It is perfectly fine to change GPLv3 software and offer it to the public as a service, without returning the changes to the community.

This is an interesting point, although I tend to view SaaS as yesterday's big idea, so it may not be a major problem. See also the comments on the above posting for more (and more coherent) thoughts on this.

Update: More negative vibes here. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I've not read the latest draft yet, so don't really have a strong view either way.

Godless Commies Choose Godless Commie OS

Given the number of times free software has been mischaracterised as communist, this seems rather appropriate:

Cuba's communist government is trying to shake off the yoke of at least one capitalist empire _ Microsoft Corp. _ by joining with socialist Venezuela in converting its computers to open-source software.

Both governments say they are trying to wean state agencies from Microsoft's proprietary Windows to the open-source Linux operating system, which is developed by a global community of programmers who freely share their code.

"It's basically a problem of technological sovereignty, a problem of ideology," said Hector Rodriguez, who oversees a Cuban university department of 1,000 students dedicated to developing open-source programs.

Free Cultural Works vs. Open Content

Now I wonder where they got the idea for this:

This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is not a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."

Here's a further hint:

We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".

Now, who do we know that prefers the word "free" to "open"?

The Man Who Would Not Compromise

Here's another journalist who has discovered RMS's impressive rigour when it comes to free software:

But once I notified Richard Stallman of my desire to proceed in converting and uploading also the Ogg Theora video files he wrote back:

"Yes, that is the right solution.

In the mean time, please delete the clips from YouTube. They were never supposed to be posted on YouTube."

I felt bad again, immediately. I understood the man had ideals and principles that went beyond my interest to inform and share rare to find information.

The Richard Stallman of Water

Heavy, man:

Late last year, I had a lunch meeting in New York City with the president of a foundation associated with a national protestant denomination. When the waiter came by to ask if we wanted a bottle of water, my lunch partner responded, “Tap water will be fine. I don’t drink bottled water.”

Don’t drink bottled water? I couldn’t remember the last time I heard someone say that – especially in New York City. I began to explore the issue with him and learned that he and many others in his church no longer drank Dasani (bottled by Coca-Cola) and other commercial bottled waters because they see the privatization of water resources as an intensely moral and political issue.

Obvious, when you think about it.

Google's Patry on "Patry on Copyright"

It would be hard to imagine a more definitive study of the field of copyright than this: over 5,500 pages, in seven volumes, occupying 25 in./63 cm of shelf space. Although there are no figures on the weight, these are clearly weighty tomes.

It takes a particular kind of individual to devote seven years of their life to writing such a treatise (and goodness knows how many more acquiring the ability to do so), but the author, Bill Patry, seems to have the perfect biography for the task:

Bill Patry is a renowned expert on Copyright Law who currently serves as Senior Copyright Counsel to Google Inc., where he is involved in diverse cutting edge issues. Patry has practiced copyright law for 25 years, 12 years of which have been in private practice, including appellate advocacy. He has been cited numerous times in landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

As a full-time law professor for 5 years and an adjunct for another 5 at the Georgetown University Law Center, Mr. Patry appreciates the importance of teaching and scholarship.

From his eight years in working in the U.S. House of Representatives and Copyright Office, Patry is familiar with the nitty-gritty of legislation and the broader policy issues that Congress deals with. He has testified before Congress, and been retained as an expert witness on numerous occasions.

Patry is the author of numerous law review articles and several books. He also served as editor or editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA for over ten years.

Given the centrality of Patry's expertise for many of the areas covered in this blog - notably open content and open source, to say nothing of intellectual monopolies - and his current position at Google, which allows him a privileged perspective on the online world, I thought it would be interesting to ask him a few questions about his work.

Glyn Moody: As background to yourself, could you say briefly what exactly the Senior Copyright Counsel to Google does - what sort of things do you get involved in that readers might know about?

Bill Patry: Google's legal department is uniquely organized. We have the traditional litigation and transactional lawyers, but we also have "product counsel," counsel who work on particular products, like Books or Videos. We also have policy and government relations lawyers. People tend not to be segregated though, and will work on projects across what in a law firm would be called a department. And that's my role par excellence: I deal with copyright issues wherever they arise.

Glyn Moody: How did the copyright treatise come about - is it something you'd been dreaming of doing for years? Was there any particular inspiration?

Bill Patry: The book started out as a second edition to an earlier work and had I stuck with that, it woudn't have taken so long. But I got into a dispute with my prior publisher, pulled the book, rewrote it almost entirely and expanded it about three fold. My idea was to write a book that drew on all the things I done and to also rethink the way legal treatises are written and used. Blogging has been an important part of that process, making the exchange of ideas interactive and not just one-way.

Glyn Moody: Could you give a few facts and figures about it for those of us who won't have the opportunity to get our hands on the real thing?

Bill Patry: The book is 7 volumes, no appendices, about 5,832 pages, 25 chapters. It is the first new multivolume treatise on copyright law in the U.S. in 17 years, is the largest by almost 100% (in text), and is I think one of the largest legal treatises even written by a single individual.

Glyn Moody: How will the The Patry Treatise Blog function alongside the book? What do you hope to achieve by creating it?

Bill Patry: I have high hopes for the blog as helping in a number of respects. It provides a way for people to give me feedback, suggest things, ask me what I meant etc. All of us have read things and have not been sure what the author meant. We're reluctant to ask the author and it takes time to write letters. With a blog, you can do it quickly, easily, and get very fast answers. I also want to be able to provide readers with important updates before the actual updates come out and to try out concepts.

Glyn Moody: Looking to the future, do you think there will ever be another such hardcopy treatise on copyright, or is this the last one before everything is purely online? Any hope the next one will be free and accessible to all?

Bill Patry: I'm not a futurist; I can't understand the past or present, much less the future.

Glyn Moody: As a copyright scholar, what's your view of Richard Stallman's GNU GPL, which draws its power from copyright? Is there any weakness in the GPL's approach to granting software freedoms from a copyright point of view?

Bill Patry: I met Stallman about 20 years ago, but haven't folllowed him since.

Glyn Moody: What impact do you think Google and its various projects will have on the field of copyright?

Bill Patry: Don't know.

Glyn Moody: From a historical perspective, how important do you think open content and the Creative Commons movement will prove? Are we moving from one copyright era to another? Is the role of copyright changing?

Bill Patry: I think Creative Commons has been wonderful in providing a way for people to license their works as they see fit. Recently, I did a post on the "Long Tail" and its effect on copyright. Copyright is an economic right and it will follow, willingly or not, where the market eventually goes.

Glyn Moody: From a theoretical viewpoint, in the best of all possible worlds, how would copyright evolve to create a legal structure that allows all these new kinds of uses to flourish? Similarly, drawing on your knowledge of copyright in the past and present, how do you think copyright will actually evolve - both in the US, and globally - in the short term and longer term?

Bill Patry: I think copyright has become less and less responsive to the balance of incentives and exceptions that the 18th century English common judges grasped intuitively. Our ability to adapt has been seriously hampered by trade agreements, and that's a big problem.

Glyn Moody: Do you have any words of advice for people like Larry Lessig who are trying to change the legal framework of copyright to allow more sharing and collaboration?

Bill Patry: I have trouble enough figuring out my own problems.

Glyn Moody: Any other comments you'd like to make about your treatise or copyright?

Bill Patry: Please buy it, use it, and give me feedback.