[seul-edu] Fwd: Re: BPDG: Revised requirements draft proposal

[tom poe <tompoe@renonevada.net>]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Re: BPDG: Revised requirements draft proposal
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:34:58 -0400
From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@fsf.org>
To: bpdg-tech@list.lmicp.com


"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@fsf.org>
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

--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation     |  Phone: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place, Suite 330   |  Fax:   +1-617-542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307  USA   |  Web:   http://www.gnu.org

-------------------------------------------------------