Gladys, Privacy, Liberty and the GPL · Wednesday December 06, 2006 by Crosbie Fitch
Scott Carpenter said 6623 days ago :
Perhaps it’s at the point where she makes it electronically available to other computers?
It’s a tough question of where to draw the line between distribution and use, and I’m still working on my own write-up of it. Part of the delay is that you give me plenty to think about with this topic. :-)
Crosbie Fitch said 6623 days ago :
Yup, take your time Scott. I did. ;-)
This hypothetical example may well need refining and expanding – depending upon where people feel it gets most hazy/controversial.
drew Roberts said 6609 days ago :
Which GPL version are you asking this question for?
all the best,
drew
Crosbie Fitch said 6609 days ago :
GPL v2, or at your option any later version.
However, the GPL does not necessarily determine what is right or wrong.
The issue is not what the GPL lets you get away with, but what it should or should not permit.
Do you believe the GPL should permit Gladys to do what she did?
Lefty said 6411 days ago :
This isn’t difficult. The punter in step 5 has a right to demand sources: he received a binary (presumably).
The punter in step 11 isn’t entitled to anything; if he’d paid the money asked, he’d have gotten the sources, but he didn’t.
The person in step 15 is presumably getting the sources anyway.
I see no problem at all with Gladys doing what she’s done, nor should anyone.
Crosbie Fitch said 6411 days ago :
I agree with you Lefty, but some people believe that because information can be copied at no cost, that there’s no reason to keep it secret or ‘artificially scarce’. Indeed that to hoard information and exploit it is mean minded.
tieguy.org/blog/2007/07/03/quick-pondering-on-artificial-scarcityAs we’ve seen with Gladys, privacy is the only thing that lets people sell their work.
If we forced Gladys to provide her work free of charge to anyone who asked for it, she’d be prevented from exchanging the value of her labour.
Her ability to keep her work private does not impinge upon anyone’s liberty.
If you want the source code, buy it.
Liberty is not getting it for nothing, but being able to do what you want with it after you’ve bought it.
Abolish the unethical privilege of copyright, but do not think to abolish the human right to privacy – nor circumvent it via a copyfarleft licence.
Frederik Hertzum said 6283 days ago :
See (5) for the answer to the riddle.
This is how the GPL works. It explecitly says that it is free, not gratis — i.e. you may have to pay to get the software. The point is that whomever pays is allowed to modify and redistribute (under the GPL) the software as he or she sees fit.
Crosbie Fitch said 6283 days ago :
That is indeed how the GPL works, but there are many who are not happy about it working that way.
Some believe that providing use of software via a network constitutes ‘distribution’ (even if no copy is actually distributed).
These people would require that the source be provided free of charge to users if they are permitted remote use of the software.
The Affero GPL is being developed for such people.
Matthew J Agnello said 6089 days ago :
Very good example. I’m thoroughly convinced the GPL shouldn’t be forcing people to give up the right to make money from their work. But I’m having trouble seeing where privacy exceeds copyright in a world where people do bad things. For instance, if the source code were leaked in a world with no copyright, there would be no recourse for Gladys, legal or otherwise, to get the compensation for her work that privacy allows.
I also am not familiar with how the GPL would handle leaked or any unintentional distribution of source code.
However, I’m definitely convinced by your example that people should have a choice about whether they’d like to divulge the source at the point of use or at the point of distribution/sale.
Crosbie Fitch said 6088 days ago :
Consideration for the mercantile privilege of copyright does tend to pre-empt popular and legal understanding of the natural right to privacy (from which copyright was so nefariously and unnaturally derived), and thus the right of publication. Very little legislation seems to recognise it. The French have it down as a moral right ‘the author is the sole judge as to when the work may be first made available to the public (Art. L121-2)’ – see Wikipedia:Moral rights.
Thus copyleft licenses should be encouraged to protect privacy to the fullest extent – not to be tempted to compromise it simply to force disclosure of source. Copyleft should be about neutralising copyright, not privacy too. It should be about removing constraint from people who have purchased works, not then enabling purchasers (or anyone else) the privilege of violating the author’s privacy or penalising them for not making their private works public.
As far as how the GPL handles leaks, RMS has never appeared to be greatly concerned with this, and has on occasion suggested that ‘liberation of code’ can only be for the best (see Free Vs. Open and Stallman hands down a fatwah on property rights). I hope it was just an aberrant confusion between liberating people and liberating inanimate software.
However, there is a big difference between ‘leaks’ of code by members of a development team necessarily and legitimately privy to the code. Given they’re privy in the first place, there can be no violation of privacy if they leak it – a betrayal of confidence and trust perhaps, with a consequent loss of reputation – but such leaking is not theft.
Theft is when someone who is not privy, has no authorised or legitimate access to someone else’s private premises, removes copies they find or manufacture of someone else’s intellectual works.
However, the GPL should indeed be concerned about privacy violations, and should take care to discriminate between legitimately obtained copies and stolen copies.
When copyright is eventually abolished, we will still need the state’s protection of our natural rights to life, privacy, truth, and liberty.
The question is: Is there a point at which anyone (a punter, Brian, the FBI) is justified in demanding that Gladys surrenders her modifications free of charge? If so, at what point?
The question arises because unbeknownst to Gladys, Brian had been tipped off about her business at some point and was extremely angry and upset at something that Gladys had done (or failed to do), and had consulted various lawyers with a view to prosecuting Gladys over her exploitation of what turned out to be a something that Brian called a loophole.