Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/06/20/voip-encryption-easy.html

Ian Sullivan showed me
an article
that he read about eavesdropping on Internet telephony calls. I’m baffled at
the obsession about this issue on two fronts. First, I am amazed that
people want to hand their phone calls over to yet another proprietary
vendor (aka Skype) using unpublished, undocumented non-standard
protocols and who respects your privacy even less than the traditional
PSTN vendors. Second, I don’t understand why cryptography experts
believe we need to develop complicated new technology to solve this
problem in the medium term.

At SFLC, I set up the telephony system as VoIP with encryption on
every possible leg. While SFLC sometimes uses Skype, I don’t, of course, because it is (a)
proprietary software and (b) based on an undocumented protocol, (c)
controlled by a company that has less respect for users’ privacy than
the PSTN companies themselves. Indeed, security was actually last on
our list for reasons to reject Skype, because we already had a simple
solution for encrypting our telephony traffic: All calls are made
through a VPN.

Specifically, at SFLC, I set up a system whereby all users have an OpenVPN connection back to the
home office. From there, they have access to register a SIP client to
an internal Asterisk server living inside the VPN network.
Using that SIP phone, they could call any SFLC employee, fully encrypted. That call
continues either on the internal secured network, or back out over the
same VPN to the other SIP client. Users can also dial out from there to any
PSTN DID.

Of course, when calling the PSTN, the encryption ends at SFLC’s office, but that’s the PSTN’s fault, not ours. No technological solution — save using a modem to turn that traffic digital — can easily solve that. However,
with minimal effort, and using existing encryption subsystems, we have
end-to-end encryption for all employee-to-employee calls.

And it could go even further with a day’s effort of work! I have a
pretty simple idea on how to have an encrypted call to anyone
who happens to have a SIP client and an OpenVPN client. My plan is to
make a public OpenVPN server that accepts connection from any
host at all, that would then allow encrypted “phone the
office” calls to any SFLC phone with any SIP client anywhere on
the Internet. In this way, anyone wishing end-to-end phone encryption
to the SFLC need only connect to that publicly accessible OpenVPN and
dial our extensions with their SIP client over that line. This solution
even has the added bonus that it avoids the common firewall and NAT
related SIP problems, since all traffic gets tunneled through the
OpenVPN: if OpenVPN (which is, unlike SIP, a single-port UDP/IP protocol)
works, SIP automatically does!

The main criticism of this technique regards the silliness of two
employees at a conference in San Francisco bouncing all the way through
our NYC offices just to make a call to each other. While the Bandwidth
Wasting Police might show up at my door someday, I don’t actually find
this to be a serious problem. The last mile is always the problem in
Internet telephony, so a call that goes mostly across a single set of
last mile infrastructure in a particular municipality is no worse nor
better than one that takes a long haul round trip. Very occasionally,
there is a half second of delay when you have a few VPN-based users on a
conference call together, but that has a nice social side effect of
stopping people from trying to interrupt each other.

Finally, the article linked above talks about the issue of variable bit
rate compression changing packet size such that even encrypted packets
yield possible speech information, since some sounds need larger packets
than others. This problem is solved simply for us with two systems: (a)
we
use µ-law,
a very old, constant bit rate codec, and (b) a tiny bit of entropy
is added to our packets by default, because the encryption is occurring
for all traffic across the VPN connection, not just the phone
call itself. Remember: all the traffic is going together across the one
OpenVPN UDP port, so an eavesdropper would need to detangle the VoIP
traffic from everything else. Indeed, I could easily make (b) even
stronger by simply having the SIP client open another connection back to
the asterisk host and exchange payloads generated
from /dev/random back and forth while the phone call is
going on.

This is really one of those cases where the simpler the solution, the
more secure it is. Trying to focus on “encryption of VoIP and VoIP only” is
what leads us to the kinds of vulnerabilities described in that article.
VoIP isn’t like email, where you always need an encryption-unaware
delivery mechanism between Alice and Bob. I
believe I’ve described a simple mechanism that can allow anyone with an
Asterisk box, an OpenVPN server, and an Internet connection to publish to the world easy instructions for phoning them securely with merely a SIP client plus and OpenVPN client. Why don’t
we just take the easy and more secure route and do our VoIP this
way?

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html

I was amazed to be involved in yet another discussion recently
regarding the old debate about the scope of the GPL under copyright law.
The debate itself isn’t amazing — these debates have happened
somewhere every six months, almost on cue, since around 1994 or so.
What amazed me this time is that some people in the debate believed that
the GPL proponents intend to sneakily pursue an increased scope for
copyright law. Those who think that have completely misunderstood the
fundamental idea behind the GPL.

I’m disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GPL is to
expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works. It
seems that so many forget (or maybe they never even knew) that copyleft
was invented to hack copyright — to turn its typical applications
to software inside out. The state of affairs that software is
controlled by draconian copyright rules is a lamentable reality;
copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright
weaponry.

But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright
control over software, then I don’t know of a single GPL proponent who
wouldn’t want to bilaterally reduce copyright’s scope for software. For
example, I’ve often proposed, since around 2001, that perhaps copyright
for software should only last three years, non-renewable, and that it
require all who wished to distribute non-public-domain software to
register the source with the Copyright Office. At the end of the three
years, the Copyright Office would automatically publish that now
public-domain source to the world.

If my hypothetical system were the actual (and only) legal regime for
software, and were equally applied to all software — from the
fully Free to the most proprietary — I’d have no sadness at all
that opportunities for GPL enforcement ended after three years, and that
all GPL’d software fell into the public domain on that tight schedule,
because proprietary software and FLOSS would have the same treatment.
Meanwhile, great benefit would be gained for the freedom of all software
users. In short, GPL is not an end in itself, and I wouldn’t want to
ignore the actual goal — more freedom for software users —
merely to strengthen one tool in that battle.

In one of my favorite films, Kevin Smith’s Dogma, Chris
Rock’s character, Rufus, argues that it’s better to have ideas than
beliefs, because ideas can change when the situation does, but beliefs
become ingrained and are harder to shake. I’m not a belief-less person,
but I certainly hold the GPL and the notion of copyleft firmly in the
“idea” camp, not the “belief” one. It’s
unfortunate that the entrenched interests outside of software are (more
or less) inadvertently strengthening software copyright, too. Thus, in
the meantime, we must hold steadfast to the GPL going as far as is
legally permitted under this ridiculously expansive copyright system we
have. But, should a real policy dialogue open on the reduction software
copyright’s scope, GPL proponents will be the first in line to encourage
such bilateral reduction.