first

1 files changed, 159 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md b/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af72c4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Why Upgrade to GPLv3 {#why-upgrade-to-gplv3 .chapter}
+=======================
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2007, 2009 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2007. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Version 3 of the GNU General Public
+License (GNU GPL) has been released, enabling free software packages to
+upgrade from GPL version 2. This article explains why upgrading the
+license is important.
+
+First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL
+version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if
+some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These
+two licenses are incompatible, but that isn’t a fundamental problem.
+
+When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no
+legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single
+program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses:
+each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger
+program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no
+way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause
+to GPLv3, but it wouldn’t do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar
+clause.
+
+Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link,
+merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program.
+There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs
+side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and
+the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn’t stop us
+from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC.
+This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and
+GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no
+conflict.
+
+Keeping a program under GPLv2 won’t create problems. The reason to
+migrate is because of the existing problems that GPLv3 will address.
+
+One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means
+certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered
+software that you can’t effectively change, because the appliance shuts
+down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization
+is that the software has features the manufacturer knows people will
+want to change, and aims to stop people from changing them. The
+manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free
+software provides, but they don’t let you do likewise.
+
+Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should
+suffice to keep nasty features to a low level. Perhaps competition alone
+would avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut down
+between 1pm and 5pm every Tuesday,” but even so, a choice of masters
+isn’t freedom. Freedom means *you* control what your software does, not
+merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you.
+
+In the crucial area of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—nasty
+features designed to restrict your use of the data in your
+computer—competition is no help, because relevant competition is
+forbidden. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws,
+it is illegal, in the US and many other countries, to distribute DVD
+players unless they restrict the user according to the official rules of
+the DVD conspiracy (its web site is <http://www.dvdcca.org/>, but the
+rules do not seem to be published there). The public can’t reject DRM by
+buying non-DRM players because none are available. No matter how many
+products you can choose from, they all have equivalent digital
+handcuffs.
+
+GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn’t forbid
+DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive
+functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it
+makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the
+distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they
+deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids
+tivoization.
+
+The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers is
+to be expected, even occasionally. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for
+products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and
+organizations.
+
+Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the
+Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents
+to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and
+made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited
+protection from Microsoft patents to Novell’s customers.
+
+Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is
+designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited patent
+protection to the whole community. In order to take advantage of this
+protection, programs need to use GPLv3.
+
+Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to
+avoid those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don’t get a “next time.”
+Releasing a program under GPL version 3 protects it from Microsoft’s
+future attempts to make redistributors collect Microsoft royalties from
+the program’s users.
+
+GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the
+program’s contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an
+implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided
+them a copy won’t sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to,
+for patent infringement.
+
+The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might have
+liked. Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes GPL-covered
+code give up all software patents, along with everyone who does not
+redistribute GPL-covered code, because there should be no software
+patents. Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all
+software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have never
+heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field. Large
+programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if
+they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations
+collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller
+developers. Patents already obstruct free software development.
+
+The only way to make software development safe is to abolish software
+patents, and we aim to achieve this some day. But we cannot do this
+through a software license. Any program, free or not, can be killed by a
+software patent in the hands of an unrelated party, and the program’s
+license cannot prevent that. Only court decisions or changes in patent
+law can make software development safe from patents. If we tried to do
+this with GPLv3, it would fail.
+
+Therefore, GPLv3 seeks to limit and channel the danger. In particular,
+we have tried to save free software from a fate worse than death: to be
+made effectively proprietary, through patents. The explicit patent
+license of GPLv3 makes sure companies that use the GPL to give users the
+four freedoms cannot turn around and use their patents to tell some
+users, “That doesn’t include you.” It also stops them from colluding
+with other patent holders to do this.
+
+Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler
+termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache
+license. All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.
+
+Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to
+users’ freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is
+important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to
+GPLv4 if and when we write one.
+
+One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any
+later version.” Another way is for all the contributors to a program to
+state a proxy who can decide on upgrading to future GPL versions. The
+third way is for all the contributors to assign copyright to one
+designated copyright holder, who will be in a position to upgrade the
+license version. One way or another, programs should provide this
+flexibility for future GPL versions.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\