GPLv3 report II

Eben Moglen began his presentation by putting recent news in new perspective. He spoke of the retirement of Bill Gates in a way that I found intriguing.
When a CEO states that he resigns there is a period of calming the market. Therefore when Gates says he will step down in two years this should not be seen as a long time. Two years it is the minimum timeframe that will not spook the market. The important issue is that the resignation comes 6 months from the shipping the most important product in 10 years.

Also we can put this into another perspective the FSF is on schedule with the most important product in 15 years. The update of to the GPLv3. The process going to version three is open and public. Philosophically it reflects the rule-making process put forward by Habermas where the idea is that those affected by the rules should be part of the decision making process.

When discussing the substantial changes Eben explain why the GPLv3 has been adapted to meet the needs of issues such as distribution via torrents, the developments within patents and the increase in DRM.

On the latter he explained that companies feel that they should be allowed to have rights (digital) and want to protect them. Many of these feel that RMS is attempting to change their vocabulary (from Rights to Restrictions). But this is not about attempting to use a software license to address non-software problems. The license (and its implementation) is about the software and the four freedoms. DRM is about the attempt to prevent users from practicing the 4 freedoms.

In closing before an extended Q&A session Eben returned to the issue of Microsoft. The falling revenues and the stepping down of Bill Gates will have the effect that one of strongest voices against Free Software will be silenced (almost). In the future arguing for Free Software will therefore not meet the strong resistance it is accustomed to.

GPLv3 report

The conference begins with Georg Greve explaining the organisation of FSF with its idea of sister organisations of FSF USA, FSF Europe, FSF Asia and FSF Latin America.

This was followed by Richard Stallman explaining what the GPLv3 would entail. He begins by stating very clearly that the most important thing to remember about any version of the GPL is that it is a free software license. Additionally the goal of the FSF is the liberation of cyberspace. This goal will be carried out by maintaining and defending four freedoms.

Software following the four freedoms is Free Software. If any freedom is substantially missing then it is proprietary software. The problem with this is that proprietary software is about the subjugation of users.

It is easy to write a license which says you are free to do what you want. But this is not the best way to liberate all the users. This is because people will modify and then distribute it as proprietary software. Copyleft is the method of preventing this practice. Copyleft is copyright flipped over. Copyright subjugates users. Copyleft prevents the middlemen from enclosing the code and making it proprietary.

Stallman then went through the highlights of important changes which are being discussed in the GPLv3.

This talk was followed by Ciaran Oâ??Riordan who gave a short talk of the public process before it was time for lunch.

Exciting news and GPL3

Exciting news! I will be part of a panel at the 3rd International GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona next week. Look at the schedule (highlights below) can you imagine a more interesting two days?

Highlights day 1 – 22 June
10:30 – Georg Greve: opening introduction
11:00 – Richard Stallman: Overview of GPL v3 Changes
12:30 – Ciarán O’Riordan: The public consultation process
14:30 – Eben Moglen: The wording of the changes

Highlights day 2 – 23 june
10:30 Panel: Current projects of FSFE

  • Carlo Piana (Tamos Piana & Partners), the MS anti-trust case
  • Pablo Machón, building the Spanish team
  • Ciaran O’Riordan, Legislation from Brussels
  • Stefano Maffulli, FSFE’s Fellowship

11:30 Panel: Awareness and adoption of GPLv3

  • Fernanda Weiden, Associação SoftwareLivre.org
  • Anne Ã?stergaard, GNOME Foundation
  • Alexandre Oliva, Free Software Foundation Latin America

12:30 Pablo Machón: GPLv3 and the European software patent struggle
14:30 Panel: The Discussion Committees

  • Niibe Yutaka, Free Software Initiative Japan (committee A)
  • Philippe Aigrain, Sopinspace (committee C)
  • Masayuki Hatta, Debian (committee D)

15:30 Panel: Enforcing the GPL, thwarting DRM

  • Harald Welte, gpl-violations.org
  • David “Novalis” Turner, Free Software Foundation
  • Mathias Klang, Informatics researcher, University of Goteborg

16:30 Stefano Maffulli: Closing presentation

Unrelated things: GPL conference & Filesharing

Some unrelated things which I put together in one post because I have been away from my blog until today (without any serious side effects).

Yesterday I was in Stockholm at the Swedish Parliament to discuss filesharing. No â?? not in the chamber! It was an enjoyable, open and interesting discussion â?? thanks for inviting me.

I also found out yesterday that the date for my thesis defence has been finalised. Once again travel plans of others had forced changes but now the date is set (for the last time! I hope.) So I will defend on October 2nd.

In addition to this I have been invited to join a panel at The 3rd International GPLv3 Conference: CCCB, Barcelona, Spain, June 22nd & 23rd. This is going to be very interesting.

I seem to have accidently forgotten (Freud who?)
to return my visitors badge…

GPLv3 Conference

On the 22nd & 23rd June its the 3rd International GPLv3 Conference which will be held in Barcelona.

The focus will be on the GPLv3 – this is from the press release

The goal of the GPL is to ensure that recipients of GPL covered software are free to examine it, to modify it, to pass on copies, and to distribute modifications. Version two of the GPL was released fifteen years ago, in 1991. The new version is being drafted to account for changes in the legal and technical environment in which software licences operate.

The main changes in version three are to minimise the harm of software patents, to prevent Digital Restrictions Management from being used against software users, and to make the licence compatible with certain classes of other Free Software licences.

Speakers will include, amongst others, Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen.

Cookyright

Georg at Freedom Bits writes about the proposed copyright for culinaric art – thats food to you and me…

German star-cook Heinz Beck of the restaurant “La Pergola” in Rome asks to introduce a copyright on cooking recipes. His argument is based on cooking also being a creative form of art.

Now Giorgio Assuma considers “culinaric art a serious issue” and asks for a EU directive to introduce a kind of cookyright. One can only marvel at the horrors of a European Cookyright Directive.

RMS & CC

Hows that for a title which demands that you know what its all about?

Richard Stallman (RMS) was recently interviewed in LinuxP2P and was asked “…what differences are there between generic CC licensing and the GPL?”

Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, donâ??t even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial.

This has caused a minor blog/email rumble of surprise that RMS is against CC. (Its even on Slashdot). I know of, respect and support RMS views. Even though I am project lead for CC Sweden I am also a member of FSF Sweden team and I dont see any contradictions with this or any contradictions in RMS on this topic. Therefore I am a bit surprised at the effect RMS’s statement has caused.

CC cannot be understood as one principle. It is a set of licenses offering the user many different options. The GPL is more ideologically stringent and therefore one can be “for” the GPL on ideological or political grounds. Claiming to be “for” CC on ideological or political grounds can only mean that you are for a simple licensing system which helps creators which is admirable but hardly as ideologically deep as creating an accessible infrastructure based for all.

Gästblogga

Henrik & jag gästbloggade på centerpartisten Johan Linander med rubriken Disney, upphovsrätt & dig.

Här är texten:

Disneys framgång bygger, i grunden, på en uråldrig tradition. Man tar en berättelse som de flesta har hört talas om, man omvandlar den (i Disneys fall till tecknad film) och sprider den till andra. Se bara på Askungen, Robin Hood, Törnrosa och Peter Pan. Genom deras återberättande har Disneys ikoner blivit en del av oss.

När en okänd svensk tecknare, Charlie Christenssen, ville göra detsamma tog han Disneys ikon och förvandlade honom till Arne Anka. Christenssen tolkade, bearbetade och spred en ny anka. Disney agerade snabbt och brutalt för att försvara deras Anka. Hade Christenssen inte orkat så hade Arne försvunnit som så många andra före honom. För att veta hur Christenssen lyckades rekommenderar vi att ni köper samlingsvolymen om Arne Anka, alternativt kan ni höra av er till oss, så berättar vi.

SÃ¥dana problem har länge varit nÃ¥gon annans problem. Större delen av befolkningen har inte möjlighet att skapa nÃ¥got som kan reta storföretag som Disney. Men som alla ni som läser detta vet â?? tekniken förändrar och skapar möjligheter. Vi och vÃ¥ra barn har nu möjlighet att ta det som finns omkring oss, tolka det och sprida det till en ringa kostnad. Vi kan som aldrig förr vara delaktiga i att tolka vÃ¥r egen samtid. Men nu när vi har möjligt att vara med rent tekniskt och ekonomiskt â?? har vi det rent juridiskt? Christenssen â??besegradeâ?? Disney, men kommer du att orka ta risken, ta striden?

Disney visar oss mycket. De lär våra barn och underhåller oss. Men bakom allt detta finns ett stort problem med vår upphovsrätt. Det handlar om att det inte finns någon möjlighet för den som vill ta en del av sin samtid och kommentera den. I striden mellan Kalle & Arne stod rätten att teckna en anka. Tack vare teknologi finns fler människor som kan skapa och sprida.

Borde inte lagen omfatta möjligheter för alla att kommentera sin egen samtid?

Mathias Klang är bitr. forskare på Göteborgs Universitet samt
projektledare för Creative Commons Sverige.

Henrik Sandklef är programmerare samt styrelsemedlem för Free Software Foundation Europe.

GPLv3 update

Kalle was obviously paying more attention than I was – so here is an update from his blog:

Additional reading to the draft you will find the â??rationale documentâ??. There is apparently a good discussion in #gplv3 on irc.freenode.net.

In addition to this there is a good overview by Andy Oram entitled “Initial report from GPL 3 conference” at ONLamp.com.