[copyleft-next] [PATCH] Anything that is called copyleft must defend the freedom to install modified versions

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Sun Aug 5 19:08:34 UTC 2012


On 08/05/2012 10:12 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote at 12:50 (EDT) on Friday:
>> I have not met one person in the past 5 years not closely affiliated
>> with the FSF who argues that the anti-Tivoization provisions are a
>> major feature giving GPLv3 an advantage over GPLv2.
> 
> You should definitely talk to some users of electronic devices who are
> trying to modify the software for them.

I know that such users exist; I'm just not aware of them being GPLv3
advocates. Maybe they are.

> I've been diposed about this matter in a court case [0].  What I said on
> the record is that we are "stuck with an interpretation that GPLv2
> doesn't cover crypto-lock-down" in large part because of public
> statements about GPLv2 that Eben Moglen made as FSF's attorney.  I
> disagree with those statements, but what can I do?  I wasn't on FSF's
> Board nor an FSF employee when Eben made those statements.  I think it's
> a horrible outcome, because I agree with Alan Cox, but I'm one voice
> facing estoppel that FSF's law firm generated for it.  I've given up
> tilting at that particular windmill: even though I think Alan is right,
> estoppel has been generated and we're stuck with it.
>
> *However*, note that's narrowed to *crypto* lock-down.  I do think any
> other means of lock-down relate to GPLv2's "scripts to control
> compilation and installation of the executable" -- distributor of binary
> works have to give instructions to install.  Eben never commented on
> this on behalf of FSF to my knowledge, so I believe that GPLv2 as is
> stands requires disclosure of all installation information up to but not
> including crypto keys.
> 
> This is precisely why all future copylefts MUST have explicit clause
> defending on this issue of cypto-lock-down, due the estoppel generated
> against GPLv2 by public statements by otherwise knowledgeable folks
> saying that GPLv2 allows crypto-lock-down.

If I understand everything you're saying here correctly, you are
effectively asserting that if Alan Cox sues someone for a GPLv2
violation, the defendant can successfully get the lawsuit thrown out
by saying that Alan Cox is bound by statements made by an unaffiliated
third party (the FSF) about its own interpretation of GPLv2? To be
sure, the FSF has had great influence over community interpretation of
GPLv2, and I consider this to be something that courts absolutely
should take into account, but a theory that this influence can have
estoppel-like effects on third parties seems a stretch to me.
Interesting, though.

> Anyway, as for your direct question "what I'm doing on this myself", 

Well, you've already answered that in your posting, by stating your
views on this issue very clearly.

>> If I start to see GPLv3 having some real-world effect on the lockdown
>> issue, maybe I'll change my mind.
> 
> This takes time.  You've given GPLv2 a full 20 years to establish
> itself, and you therefore say it's a valid, useful license. 

Actually I think GPLv2 was valid and useful the moment it was released
in 1991 .

> But you've
> only given the clarified and improved terms of GPLv3 a mere 5 years, and
> now you're saying: "I've decided its terms don't matter and I give up on
> its key provisions now".

That isn't what I'm saying. It may be fair to accuse me of impatience
at the 5-year mark. I certainly think the terms in GPLv3, including
the terms we're talking about here, *do* matter, if only because
there's quite a lot of software licensed under it. I'm not so sure
these terms are "key provisions" of GPLv3, though, for reasons I've
already suggested.

> Shouldn't copyleft-next include any provision we agree
> is good policy?

Not necessarily. I don't want it to be hundreds of pages (or hundreds
of thousands of words) long. It can't address every policy.

>> Much as I believe I said of the anti-Tivoization provisions: if we
>> knew that these provisions were being used to discourage or render
>> ineffective lockdown of consumer devices, the argument for deleting
>> them might be a lot weaker.
> 
> This is argument seems akin to perfection theory of GPLv2.
> 
> You're basically saying here that copyleft-next will include no
> provision that hasn't been previously directly enforced on. 

No, that would be an unreasonably conservative view, particularly
given how little enforcement there appears to be, as you note. I'm
saying rather that while there are good reasons to take these
provisions out, I might be convinced otherwise if I were seeing them
work effectively in the post-2007 world. Maybe some of your
enforcement work will establish that.

> You're arguing that certain license terms aren't "popular" or "enforced
> yet" as reasons to have or not have certain things in the license.

That's not quite what I'm saying, but let's say you're close enough.
Space is limited, so we have to make some tradeoffs. If my perception
that few people who otherwise like GPLv3 actually care about these
provisions is correct (I realize you think I'm wrong), they are an
obvious candidate for deletion.

You (probably) won't like this comparison, but think of GPLv2 section
8 -- legitimizing territorial restrictions. This is (in retrospect, I
realize) a bad, strange and also almost entirely unused provision. The
FSF rightly deleted it from GPLv3, after first asking whether anyone
in the GPL-using community felt it ought to stay in. No one came
forward. And one of the main arguments for deleting it was that no one
used it.

> What's the point of writing a copyleft license with no morality?
> Copyleft *is* a moral position.  If you want an amoral license, why not
> go make DWTFYW-next instead?

That's just as much about, and not about, morality. I don't think it
is correct to imply that permissive non-copyleft licenses are 'more
amoral' than copyleft (and would this make weak copyleft licenses
'semi-amoral'?)

> Anyway, it sounds like you're rejecting my patch vehemently.  

Not vehemently. I still have an free/open mind on this entire issue.
But your patch is actually asking me to not only restore the GPLv3
policy but actually to expand it further than any free software
license has ever done, other than possibly drafts of GPLv3.

> Since
> copyleft-next is a dictatorship, 

You seemed to dislike my suggestion that we apply for Apache incubator
which would presumably require abolition of benevolent dictatorship
governance.  :-)

> is there any point in continuing to advocate
> for my patch?  What would be the necessary requirements those us who oppose
> cryto-lock-down to get it added? 

I welcome continued discussion of the policy issue.

> Would you at least consider my patch if I rewrite it but leave out
> "authorization keys" for now, while we continue this discussion?  I've
> posted a merge request on this (see elsewhere in the thread).

I'll take a look at it.

>  Most people don't realize that their local pizza parlor has
>     more staffing that nearly any given non-profit org in the Free Software
>     community.

Agreed. I encourage everyone in the world reading this to consider
donating to the Software Freedom Conservancy and the Free Software
Foundation.

 - Richard







More information about the copyleft-next mailing list