Releasing old software into public domain. [LWN.net]

From:		David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup)
To:		letters@lwn.net
Subject:		Releasing old software into public domain.
Date:		12 Sep 2002 13:05:57 +0200
Cc:		gnu@gnu.org, proski@gnu.org


Pavel Roskin has suggested that

     Reading recent discussions in the online media, it is clear that
     many people have an issue with the copyright laws that make
     copyrights remain in force for many decades.

     I believe that the Free Software Foundation should release into
     the public domain all the software currently under GPL, that is
     at least 15 years old, and for which FSF is the sole copyright
     holder.

     GPL is a great license because it uses the copyright law to make
     software free. However, 15 years should be enough for software to
     enjoy copyright protection. Even when our goals are noble, we
     should not be using the copyright law beyond the fair limit that
     we would like it to have.

     In my opinion, FSF could make a good point by releasing its old
     software into the public domain. That would be an example for
     other copyright holders, even those who produce non-free
     software.

I find that this suggestion speaks of a complete misunderstanding of
the Free Software Foundation's aims as I perceive them.  The Free
Software Foundation is all in favor of a legal system where the
copyright laws do not permit restricting the freedoms of software
users arbitrarily.  Such a system does not exist.  The GPL license is
used for effectively creating a pool of software which uses those
exact copyright laws for securing a sanctuary _effectively_ protected
from the bad sideeffects of said laws.

The difference to software released without similar restrictions is
that that is subject to unfair treatment: it can be used in
proprietary software products, whereas those proprietary products may
not in turn be used in the free products.

The FSF has chosen to release their software under a license which
does not merely ask for fair play, but requires it.  Making software
available as free-for-all would be diluting their message.  Apart from
that, authors having contributed to GNU software have received written
assurances that their contributions may not be used in proprietary
products.  Even if the FSF was willing to make such a contraproductive
move, it would probably not be allowed to do so for legal reasons.

This is my personal view and reading of the matters and in no way
is a statement of opinion from the FSF itself.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

(Log in to post comments)

Agree

Posted Sep 19, 2002 6:47 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

The FSF has chosen to release their software under a license which does not merely ask for fair play, but requires it. Making software available as free-for-all would be diluting their message. Apart from that, authors having contributed to GNU software have received written assurances that their contributions may not be used in proprietary products. Even if the FSF was willing to make such a contraproductive move, it would probably not be allowed to do so for legal reasons.

Agree, and agree. I'd be annoyed if I copylefted something significant, handed it over to the FSF, and later they copycentred it.

Agree

Posted Sep 19, 2002 11:21 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

I'd be annoyed if I copylefted something significant, handed it over to the FSF, and later they copycentred it.

Well, that's the choice you made and the risk you took. It's like Saddam Hussein using your GPL software to run the alarm systems at his microbe factories. You previously decided that the benefits of releasing under the GPL outweigh the drawbacks of contributing to such activities. So with signing away your copyrights: the benefits of helping out an official GNU project are perceived to outweigh the risk of disagreeing with the FSF about how best to husband the copyright.

Personally I would not sign away the copyright to anything I feel as strongly about as you seem to. Problem solved. (Actually I write very little software that I could be said to care that much about, so the point is largely moot.)

By the way, should we take your statement to mean that you are in favor of copyright terms longer than 15 years for computer code? I would find that position rather hard to defend, given the pace of the industry.

Re: Agree

Posted Sep 19, 2002 19:44 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Peter's post may be based on a misunderstanding. When you assign your work to the FSF, you do so by means of a contract, one that binds the FSF as well as you. The contract essentially states that the work will remain free software, and imposes other requirements on the FSF as well.

The standard contract language, though, would permit the FSF to switch to a "copycenter" license, if my reading is correct, switch from GPL to LGPL or vice versa, though I'm told that they've negotiated different language in some cases.

CAN the GPL be revoked ?

Posted Sep 19, 2002 15:44 UTC (Thu) by guybar (subscriber, #798) [Link]

IANAL, but I'm not sure the FSF is even legally allowed to release
GPLed materials, that were practically donated to it under
the [im|ex]plicit assumption they will be kept under the GPL.

nor do I reasonably suspect they'd do such nasty, foolish act.