[News]
Free Software Foundation: BPDG threatens free software

Bradley Kuhn, Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation, sent the following to the BPDG:

Dear Michael, co-chairs, and fellow BPDG members,

I am the executive director of the Free Software Foundation. I was only recently made aware of the activities of the BPDG, and thus am a late comer to the discussion. However, according to the CPTWG, this subgroup is open to all organizations who have an interest in its recommendations. Having read the relevant material, it is clear that the requirements on "Covered Products" set forth in the Revised Requirements Draft Proposal will have a direct and negative impact the work of Free Software developers, and thus a direct impact on the Free Software Foundation.

Before I discuss the details of that impact on Free Software, I will give some brief background on our organization. The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded in 1985. We promote and create software that is Free as in freedom; the user has the freedom to copy, redistribute, and modify all Free Software. In the 1980s, we started development of a completely Free Software Unix-compatible operating system, called GNU. Available today as modern GNU/Linux systems (whose name is often shortened to "Linux"), this operating system has an estimated twenty million users worldwide. GNU/Linux is widely used and redistributed by large corporations such as IBM and HP. While the system has thousands of contributors, FSF remains the largest single copyright holder of the core GNU/Linux system.

From my understanding of your requirements draft, it is likely that a GNU/Linux system and other related Free Software will eventually be considered Covered Products. Currently, many people use GNU/Linux systems to view television broadcasts; I doubt this will change as HDTV becomes more widespread. Thus, FSF is gravely concerned about what this proposal will mean for GNU/Linux as a Covered Product.

Most Free Software that can decode broadcast signals would not typically fit the requirements in Sections 3.a and 3.b of the proposal. However, even if Free Software developers did make efforts to implement those restrictions, it would be utterly impossible to adhere to most of the other requirements in the proposal---in particular, but not limited to, Sections 7.a, 7.c, 11.a, and 11.b.

Free Software is designed around the idea of sharing information and advancing human knowledge---the core principles that made the modern advent of digital technology possible. FSF and Free Software developers around the world share the source code of all Free Software programs. Free Software licenses give users the freedom to modify the software as they see fit.

Thus, requiring a software product to "frustrate" the user is in direct conflict with users' ability to modify the software to suit their needs. We have no way to tell why the user would like to modify the software---perhaps it is for the purposes of infringing copyright, but usually it is not. Most of the time, users simply wish to enhance the software to fix bugs or make it work better for the community.

Also, with Free Software, all of the generally available standard tools for analyzing software would show the user how to make modifications to the product. In fact, this is the goal; developers of Free Software are encouraged to improve it to help the community of users. Perhaps a few will "improve" it by causing it to violate Section 3 of your draft; most others will simply improve it to make it more robust, more reliable, and to provide better features.

Since everyone agrees that adoption of digital television technology is important, it seems to me that this working group should seek a consensus that allows the largest possible Free market to innovate around digital technology. The proposed draft summarily dismisses Free Software from the innovation space, and I seen no easy way to repair the draft to treat Free Software on equal footing. I suggest the adoption of an alternative draft that asserts the rights of innovators to use Free Software in Covered Products. I believe that EFF has circulated such a draft.

As it stands, FSF opposes the Revised Requirements Draft Proposal.

Sincerely,
Bradley Kuhn