GPL & the DMCA, Explained for Non-Techies
PAY ATTENTION, PUBLIC: THIS IS YOUR CODE
A HUGE clash is about to peak in the computer-coding world between Open Source/GPL and the DMCA. This will have profound effects upon just about every consumer product and service that has to do with computers at all. So unless you’re Amish, sit up and pay attention. Here’s the simplified, not-very-technical version:
The General Public License (GPL) was devised in order to make it possible for people to create computer code and put it in the public domain. It’s not perfect; let’s be clear about that up front. It’s also not the only player out there trying to create a digital public space. But we’ll focus on it because it’s major, basic, and has the right idea.
Before the GPL, anything that *you* didn’t copyright or patent just got snatched up and copyrighted / patented by somebody else, usually some company who would then fiercely defend their right to act like they owned the code, by forbidding others to look at it, modify it, add to it, etc.
Code legitimately produced by a corporation is owned by the corporation, of course; they spent the money to develop it. There are arguments about whether that means they should be able to keep people from looking at it — many of Microsoft’s security flaws, for example, might have been fixed faster if they made it easier for security experts to see what was going on — but nobody really argues that companies have the right to sell the code they paid to write, same as anybody has the right to sell a product they develop.
But should ALL code be owned? Many professional coders think not. They wanted software, especially an operating system, whose code remained open. So they invented licenses which state that you can use their code in your projects, even sell your modified version of it, but if you use their “open source”, you have to leave it open. Others still have to be able to see and modify it after you change it. It’s public code.
PUBLIC CODE UNDER ATTACK
Now, public code is a GREAT idea, for too many reasons to count. (They’re basically the same reasons why public land is a great idea. Natch?) Because of this, it has a large following in the tech community of very good coders who work on it, often free of charge, just because it’s a good idea. There are an unbelievable slew of Open Source programs out there, for Linux (the main Open Source operating system) as well as for Mac and Windows. There are advanced graphics programs (The Gimp) and Internet browsers (Mozilla Firefox) and media players (XMMS) and, well, you name it.
All forms of Open Source are gaining in popularity, though they never were intended to replace commercial software completely, and they won’t. (There is, however, an intriguing business model that involves writing open-source software, giving it away for free and charging a small amount for technical support and customizations to people who want them. An interesting twist, don’t you think?) However, the ability to save huge amounts of time and money by using OSS as the basis for another project — say, you’re a government and you use Open Source Software as the base for some online database you’re building; now, instead of spending millions to build it, you just hire a couple guys to tweak it and maintain it and voila! Like throwing the company picnic in a nice public park. Yay public code.
Unfortunatlely, public code isn’t very well understood yet, and in this world/country/economy of grab-it-and-squeeze-it-for-money-and-throw-it-away-quick, it’s under attack. Companies are doing everything they can to find ways to use Open Source code without having to keep the resulting product Open Source as well. (Ask yourself this: If a corporation could get away with building their headquarters for free on public land, don’t you think they would?)
They’re also fighting the battle on several fronts to keep as much control of code they write as humanly possible — levels of control that we don’t afford to physical products, for obvious competition and safety reasons.
THE DMCA: YOU LIKE JAIL, BOY?
Let me give a quick example: I build a Widget. Now I have the right to make Widgets, and sell them to you. Do I have any of the following rights as well?
- To lock the Widget box and forbid anyone from opening it, including sending people to jail who do open it and/or write about what’s in it?
- To withhold knowledge of how the Widget works from the service sector, so that ONLY I can fix broken Widgets (and charge what I want)?
- To make sure that nobody else can build another, different or improved, version of the Widget (cheaper/faster/uses DC power/etc.)?
- To forbid anyone from making anything that attaches to / works with my Widget (like Widget Carrying Straps or colorful Widget Protective Cases)?
- To forbid anyone from looking inside the Widget to see if there’s any safety or legal problems with the way it works?
…Obviously the answer is no. If you’re in doubt, think of cell phones or cars and go back and answer the questions for each. (You will note, if you’re careful, that there are small differences in the answers for those two products…why do you think that is?)
Yet these are all things that software companies believe they have a right to — to an utter lack of scrutiny and competition — and they’re so far entrenched in that view that they’ve already gotten Congress to pass a law that supports it. It’s called the DMCA [wikipedia] or Digital Millenium Copyright Act [pdf of legislation], and while it’s obviously illegal (IMO) and hotly contested, it is still, at this moment, law.
It says that if you peek inside a Widget and write an article about how it works, I can have you arrested.
It says that if I put a lock on every Widget I manufacture, and you buy one and open the lock for any reason, I can have you arrested.
It says that you can’t make a Widget of your own, even completely from scratch, if it’s in essence a modified version of my Widget. So, for instance, if my Widget is compatible with Microsoft Windows only, and you make one that’s compatible with Linux too–and maybe also half the size and twice the speed and purple–yup, arrested.
It says that you can’t make anything which modifies my Widget at all — so no sneaky making a Widget Hat that lets a regular Widget work with Linux, either.
…And these are not “possible” events or “what if” scenarios. A Norwegian 14-year-old was nearly extradited and arrested several years ago for making his DVD player work with Linux. A professor has been dragged out of a conference by the police for presenting a paper on how some of Adobe’s software security measures work. And Microsoft just got a $9 million dollar judgment awarded to them in the case of two people who made a modification for the X-Box that let people back up the games they owned to the device’s own hard-drive for storage and faster play (the rationale? Using the software, a person MIGHT pirate games. What’s next — arresting hardware-store owners when someone gets beaten to death with a hammer?).
THE DMCA IS AN ATTACK ON OPEN SOURCE
THE DMCA RUNS DIRECTLY COUNTER TO OPEN SOURCE. If the DMCA is allowed to exist and flourish, then the public protections written into Open Source code will become not only impossible to enforce, but illegal. Corporations are already chipping away at the GPL, seeing how far they can go with using the code but keeping absurd levels of we-own-your-soul control over it (Hi, Tivo!) — and they’re using the ridiculous “rights” granted to them by the DMCA (which the industries wrote, and lobbyists got passed with virtually no changes) to back them up.
As I said, I’m simplifying this debate — the DMCA actually does a lot more evil than just that, and its effects reach over into books and movies and music as well, locking up the market so that nobody can touch the distributors’ rights to make 90% of the profit by overcharging the public and screwing the artists — esssentially erasing any benefit to either artists or the public that the Internet and computers might have had.
But what you should know right now is that the DMCA is a direct attack on the rules that enable the market to function fairly in this country. They’re trying to slip rules in the back door that destroy openness and competition in the digital realm, banking on the fact that regular people (and Judges) don’t have the technical skill to spot what they’re doing until it’s too late.
Well, now you know. If enough people know, then they won’t win, at least not for much longer. But it’s imperative that Open Source Software be supported, and the DMCA shot down (at the very least in the court of public opinion) sooner rather than later, because nothing stains like an entrenched law.
W0RD.
Thanks for donating your brain to this worthy cause for the last five minutes. ;)
-PD