Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >> Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Let me get this straight.  The freedom that you are trying to protect is
>> >> > the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them?
>> >> 
>> >> Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer
>> >> using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he
>> >> holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his
>> >> rights to do anything with the code?
>> >
>> > Why should we license any copyrights or patents to him when he's not
>> > willing to reciprocate?  It's his right to charge us cash for using his
>> > patent, but then it's our right to then demand he pay us for using our
>> > copyrighted and patented intellectual property.
>> 
>> Well, no reason, really.  The same no reason that you license your
>> copyrights to those who aren't willing to reciprocate.  You have every
>> right to make that demand -- but then what you're doing isn't Free
>> Software, just a very generous shared source program.
>> 
>> It's still a cool thing, it's just not Debian's cool thing.
>
> GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses.  I understand the
> tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any
> different?

There are no reciprocity clauses in the GPL.  There are symmetry
clauses -- but nothing compels me to give anything to the upstream as
such, ever.  I only have to give others the same freedom with a
distributed original or derivative work that I had with the original.

For example, I can make a modification to Emacs and keep it to
myself.  Or just share it with my friends -- though they're free to do
otherwise with it.

And if I find out that Emacs infringes one of my patents, then I can
sue the FSF over this.  I don't lose the right to keep using Emacs --
after all, I haven't done anything wrong.  But I can't distribute it
unless I give everybody else the same freedoms I have.

In contrast, let's say I'm using Helix -- publicly -- and Real is
taken over by Microsoft.  Microsoft wishes to squelch all this free
software stuff, so they start intentionally infringing patents owned
by those known to be publicly using Helix, including me.  Now I'm over
a barrel: I have to let Microsoft, which hasn't released any of its
patents or software to me, use my patents without fee, or I have to
pay all the costs associated with stopping use of Helix and switching
to something else.

That's the kind of problem we're trying to prevent.  I understand why
you don't want to release Helix under the GPL -- to prevent Microsoft,
say, from using it on MSN with modifications without releasing those.
And I don't blame you.  That seems like a really good reason.  You're
afraid that if Microsoft or others had certain freedoms, they'd use
them in ways which hurt you.

But that doesn't make your software Free; it just gives you a good
reason to be non-Free to go with all the good reasons to be Free.  So
maybe there's a way to get you what you want *and* to have Helix be
free software.  For example, releasing most of Helix under the LGPL
with some particularly important parts -- codecs, maybe -- Under the
RPSL.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu