RMS on Radio NZ - August 2008

This is a transcript of the interview between Kim Hill of Radio New Zealand and Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation. The transcript was created using Free Software -- Radio New Zealand provided the audio in the Free Ogg Vorbis format, I listened to it using the Free, cross-platform sound editor Audacity, and the text was typed in to an instance of the Vim editor on an Ubuntu GNU/Linux operating system. It is published here using Free Software -- the NanoBlogger blog engine and the nginx web server, running on the same Ubuntu GNU/Linux server. RMS requested the "no derivative works" clause in the license, and Radio New Zealand requested "noncommercial".
Saturday 9 August 2008 / approx. 8.20 am NZST

Radio New Zealand National / Saturdays with Kim Hill

Interview between Kim Hill (presenter) and Richard M Stallman

Transcript by Jim Cheetham jim@inode.co.nz with permission from Radio New

  Transcript Copyright (c)  2008  Jim Cheetham
  This work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
  New Zealand License.


  You are free to Share -- to copy, distribute and transmit the work;
  Under the following conditions:

    Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
    author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse
    you or your use of the work).

    Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

    No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

  Please attribute this work by reference to the original participants,
  Richard Stallman and Kim Hill/Radio New Zealand.


Interesting sections :-
[00:00] Introduction
[00:51] RMS says "Hi" :-)
[01:16] The Dover printer story
[03:57] Opening locked doors
[04:47] "Why should they release software?"
[06:34] Bill Gates' letter to hobbyists
[08:54] How does the GPL work?
[10:13] Is this "Open Source"?
[11:39] Idealism and the corruption of society
[13:17] MP3 players
[14:21] Is there such a thing as "Intellectual Property"?
[17:39] International support for the FSF
[18:23] (break in programming)
[19:05] Libre versus gratis
[20:12] Listener question: proprietary software in cars
[21:19] Pharmaceutical companies
[22:09] Innovation
[23:36] Political upbringing of RMS
[24:19] New Zealand Copyright laws
[28:09] Listener question: Google's services
[32:21] Monsanto's Terminator seeds
[33:47] Final words
[34:09] Radio NZ release an Ogg Vorbis copy of the audio

[KH] I am extremely happy to welcome the esteemed elder of hacking culture,
Richard Stallman. Now Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation as
part of his pioneering campaign against proprietary software. He's been hailed
as changing the way the world looks at technology, an eccentric genius, a
high-tech Robin Hood who took on the might of Microsoft. In 1984 Stallman
launched the GNU project to produce a free replacement for the Unix operating
system, which in 1992 became GNU/Linux, the first available free operating
system that could run on a PC. Richard Stallman is in New Zealand at the
moment and he joins me now; good morning.

[RMS] Hi

[KH] I'm so sorry to keep you waiting, it's been an exciting morning so far.

[RMS] Well at least I was able to wait indoors.

[KH] Yeah well, that's right you're lucky because you are in our Auckland
Studio. Now your campaign for free software began, just put it in context for
me Richard, twenty years ago or more

[RMS] Twenty-five

[KH] with a jammed printer, the story goes, when you were at MIT Artificial
Intelligence Lab. Tell me that story.

[RMS] Well that's actually just part of what taught me to appreciate the
difference between freedom-respecting software and proprietary software. But,
we had a printer called the Xerographic printer and I added various convenient
features such as when it finished a print job it would, the system would
display a message on your screen saying that your print job was done, and when
the printer got jammed it displayed a message on the screen of everyone waiting
for a printout saying "the printer's in trouble, go fix it". Well of course
those people would want it to be fixed so somebody would fix it . Well, when
we got another, much faster improved printer called the Dover it also
frequently got paper jams. I wanted to add that feature and I couldn't do it,
because the Dover was controlled by a proprietary program, and we did not have
the source code for it, and I never even thought of trying to ask Xerox for the
source code. But eventually I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon had a
copy of it, eventually I was there so I went into his office and said "Hi, I'm
from MIT, could I have a copy of the printer's software source code?" and he
said "No, I promised not to give you a copy", and I was stunned by this. So
stunned that I went away thinking about it. I realised that when he signed a
Non-Disclosure Agreement he had betrayed us at MIT, his colleagues. What he had
done much more than that, he hadn't just betrayed us, he had betrayed you as
well, and in fact he had betrayed the whole world; and this made me think of
the evil Emperor in the Chinese, famous Chinese novel, quote Ts'ao Ts'ao who
had, was reported to have said "I'd rather betray the whole world than have the
whole world betray me", and he is considered basically almost like their
equivalent of the Devil.

[KH] The culture you come from at MIT was, was a hacker culture, right, and you
might need to define the word hacker for me because it's not as we most
understand it.

[RMS] Absolutely; what we mean and meant by "hacker" is "enjoying playful
cleverness", and this doesn't just mean with computers, if you like playful
cleverness you'll find ways to be playfully clever in whatever medium happens
to come to hand.

[KH] But in your medium it was about circumventing obstacles to the extent that
you would break into rooms to use terminals.

[RMS] That's a bit different, that was actually sort of the informal policy of
the lab, that people were not allowed to lock up the scarce terminals that
there were

[KH] But that's part of your philosophy isn't it?

[RMS] Right, but the point is that that, it wasn't just that it was, it wasn't
so much that I would, would open these doors so that I could use these
terminals, but rather, they were supposed to be open, and professors who got
above themselves and thought that they were entitled to lock up the scarce
terminals when they weren't even there so that nobody could get his work done,
that was not allowed, so to speak, and I was enforcing this policy, informally.

[KH] Just the basic question that people always ask of you, no doubt to your
constant irritation is, looking at Xerox and the printer for example, why would
Xerox give away a vital part of it's commercial product?

[RMS] Well, it's not a matter of "why would they", it's their moral obligation,
and I really don't ...

[KH] All right, why should they?

[RMS] Because users deserve freedom. There are four essential freedoms that
users deserve; Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish, and
there proprietary programs that restrict you even in that. Freedom One is the
freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the
program do what you wish. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbour
which is the freedom to make and distribute exact copies of the program as you
wish. And Freedom Three is the freedom to contribute to your community, which
is the freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions when you
wish. With these four Freedoms, then users, both individually and
collectively, have control of their computing, and are free also to help each
other. So these Freedoms are socially essential, and no-one has the right,
ethically, to deny them to anyone. So I don't really care whether Xerox wants
to respect these Freedoms, what I say is, if they don't, they should not be
doing this at all.

[KH] So what do you say, or what did you say to Bill Gates, when in his open
letter to hobbyists back in 1976, he said "who can afford to do professional
work for nothing?"

[RMS] Well, I never even saw that letter, I wasn't using micro-computers, in
fact I never did, and I wasn't even aware of his existance at the time. But
you'll note that GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix" ...

[KH] That's right, what do you call that, it's a recursive acronym

[RMS] Right, but this is, it's not "GNU's Not MS-DOS", I wasn't even thinking
about MS-DOS which I considered a toy, and the Free Software Movement isn't
aimed at Microsoft, it's only later that Microsoft developed almost a monoply
and people started thinking of that as the thing that you might replace.

[KH] However the Bill Gates question remains valid, what hobbyist can put three
man-years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product, and
distributing it?

[RMS] Well actually, thousands of us do; because his argument is that Free
Software couldn't exist, and the fact is it does. He's like somebody arguing
that planes couldn't possibly fly while you can go to the airport and see them
taking off. There are tens of thousands of useful Free programs, some big, some
small, that were worth packaging for users to conveniently install in free
versions of GNU plus Linux operating systems. So, a better question would be;
"why do people do this?", but the fact is, we do, and I've seen many reasons
for it. One is, politicial idealism like mine, but most people and most
developers actually don't share that. Another motive is "fun", because hacking
doesn't just mean circumventing, it means playful cleverness, and solving
problems, making a program work can be fun, it's one example of hacking, which
many of us enjoy.

[KH] Now you came up with a General Public License, the GPL, to counteract
software secrecy, how does that work?

[RMS] Well, first of all I should explain that the way you make a program free
software is by releasing it with a suitable license that gives users the four
essential freedoms. Now we call that license, that statement by the copyright
holder, a Free Software license. Well, there are many ways to do that, there
are at least dozens of Free Software licenses. The one that's used most often
is the GNU General Public License, which I wrote. And, what's special about it,
is a condition that we call copyleft, and this condition says whenever you
distribute a copy, whether it's an exact copy or a copy of your modified or
extended version, that you must do so in the same way. You must release it
under the same license, you must provide the source code, and in general you
must respect the freedom of those who get copies from you just as we respected
your freedom which you took advantage of to distribute these copies.

[KH] And the underlying philosophy of this is that it's a win-win situation
because by enabling everybody to have access to all the software the software
gets improved for the manufacturer.

[RMS] Well, actually no. There are other people who make that argument and
those are the people who promote "quote Open Source unquote" ...

[KH] which you're very keen to distinguish from your own movement

[RMS] Absolutely. Although they're talking about almost the same body of
software, with occasional exceptions, the reasons they give are based on
different values. They make the argument that this will improve the software
for the original developer because they're unwilling to say that that developer
is morally obligated to respect the freedom of the users. They base it on
practical values only and they take for granted that proprietary software
subjugating users is legitimate; whereas I say, and we in the Free Software
movement say, that users are entitled to freedom and that proprietary software
is a social problem and we're aiming to correct that problem, put an end to
that problem.

[KH] I see; I mean it's an extraordinarily interesting position for you to have
put yourself in, bacause you are arguing in an extremely idealistic way in a
world that is intensly commercial.

[RMS] Well, it's corrupt. You see, when I grew up I lived in a capitalist
country, but today when we have is not what I would call capitalism, it's
extreme capitalism, it's a society in which people have taken for granted that
everything should be for sale, and I just call that corrupt.

[KH] When was there a time when everything wasn't for sale?

[RMS] In the US in the 1960's enough representatives were elected who were in
favour of restricting businesses that it often happened.

[KH] And so, you're not trying to change the entire world, you're trying to
change this bit of the world, and this is a distinctively political issue for

[RMS] Well, the Free Software movement is concerned with these freedoms for
computer software users.

[KH] But, I mean, by extension if computer users, well, if computer users want
that freedom then where will it all end?

[RMS] Well, I personally support a lot of other causes for freedom as well, I
defend many other kinds of human rights that the Bush regieme has totally
trashed. But I didn't invent those movements, you know, I just give them my
help as thousands of other people do.

[KH] You don't have an MP3 player and you don't have a cellphone, as we
discovered this morning.

[RMS] Well actually, that's not quite true, there is software, there's free
software to play MP3 files. Now, in the US, some distributors of this free
software have been threatened with suits for patent infringement, because the
US has an extremenly stupid policy, allowing software ideas to be patented.
Well, if you look at your wordprocessor you'll see that it has hundreds of
features, which add up to thousands of different ideas in the code itself, and
any one of those could be patented in the US, which means that the developer of
a wordprocessor faces thousands, well suppose only 10% of those ideas really
are patented, hundreds of potential lawsuits, perhaps from parties unknown that
just happen to have got a patent, or bought a patent on some one of those
thousands of ideas.

[KH] Do you accept that there is such a thing as intellectual property?

[RMS] It's a meaningless concept to even speak about. I'm not totally against
copyright law, and I'm also not totally against patent law, I just say that
patent law shouldn't be applied to software, but speaking of those two laws and
a dozen other laws as well as "quote Intellectual Property unquote" is a recipe
for failing to understand even what the laws actually do, because they're
totally different, they have very little in common and all the rest is
different and if you lump them together like that you will not understand
anything. So anytime someone has an opinion about "quote Intellectual Property
unquote" it's a foolish opinion; I don't have one, I've intentionally removed
that term from my discourse, because I want to understand these various laws
and I want to help you understand them as well, so I just explain that, why
patents in software are harmful, and they're harmful to, they're dangerous to
all software developers, and in some countries even the users can, the
authorized users, authorized by the developer, can get suied by patent holders
that they never heard of. But this is a totally different issue from the issue
of Free versus proprietary software, which tends to relate to copyright law,
but also to contracts. And meanwhile there are also trademarks, which are
basically a good system. I, aside from a few details, I think that trademarks
should exist, and I'm in favour of them. And so these are three different laws
that you confuse together if you speak of "quote Intellectual Property

[KH] Is Microsoft still trying to, or thinking about trying to, seek royalities
for patent infringements? Because it says, or it has been saying, that the
Linux kernel alone violates 42 patents.

[RMS] Well, who knows? Because most of those threats are kept secret, the
perpetrator says to the victim "Don't tell anyone what I've done to you". I
heard from somebody whose name I don't know that his company, which was running
the GNU/Linux system on its servers, was threatened by Microsoft and Microsoft
demanded that they pay for the use of various ideas that are implemented in the
system. When I, he wouldn't tell me his name of the company's name, so I don't
actually have any hard evidence that I could present in a court for instance,
not that there's anything you could sue them about; but the thing is there's so
many of these patents that people don't even bother to ask whether any of these
accusations is really justified because they're just too many, they think it's
easier to pay.

[KH] So is there international support for your Foundation?

[RMS] Well, yes, the Free Software movement is quite strong in various
contrites such as Spain, Germany, France, Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil,
and Argentina.

[KH] why is it particularly strong in some countries and not others?

[RMS] I don't know.

[KH] I mean I'm wondering whether it comes back a sort of political

[RMS] One thing that may help is that, in Spanish if you say "libre" it's not
"gratuito", so these two different meanings of the English word "free" have
different words.

[KH] Richard, can I; we have to break for the news now.
[KH] Richard Stallman is the leader of the Free Software movement, as we
explained before the news. He's arguing, campaigning for four basic freedoms
involved with free software, the user's ability to run a program as they wish;
to study the source code, to change it so that it does what they wish; the
ability to help your neighbour by distributing exact copies; and the freedom to
contribute to the community by making and distributing copies of modified
programs. In other words, it's a philosophy, a political philosophy. Just
before we had to break for the news Richard we wsere talking about
international interests, and you were talking about Spain, and "libre".

[RMS] Well, in Spain, and in general in Spanish speaking countries it's easy to
make distinctions between these two different meanings of the word "free"
because they have different words. We sometimes even say and write "libre" in
English to help clarify this, but we also say "Think of Free Speech, not Free

[KH] Yeah, and that's your distinction really because it it's intellectual
property ...

[RMS] Aah, but nothing's Intellectual Property, but there is proprietary
software, and sometimes proprietary software is available "gratis", but it's
still not acceptable if it doesn't respect your freedoms. On the other hand,
people do buy and sell copies of Free Software, that's entirely acceptable,
it's permitted by all the Free Software licenses, because we're not against
business, we're against; we're for freedom.

[KH] Somebody has emailed us to say that if you're against proprietary software
in interfaces, can you ask him, and this is the question to you; how can you
possibly travel in a modern car and not feel guilty or ashamed, as these days
cars use software on their onboard computers to control almost everything from
fuel injection to alarmed central locking.

[RMS] First of all, I don't own a car and I don't mind if I, you know, use the
computer of some place that I'm visiting for a little while, even if it has
Windows in it I wouldn't have a computer set up for me to use with Windows or
own one, but if I'm just visiting a place I won't make those insistences on
what other people do. But yeah, it is a real issue with cars, and it gets in
the way of people wishing to service their own cars. In the US laws have been
proposed to try to do something about this, so this exactly shows you why
proprietary software is bad.

[KH] what about pharmaceutical companies, does your philosophy extend to their
kind of patent?

[RMS] Well, first of all, software and pharmaceuticals are very different.

[KH] But intellectual property ...

[RMS] Ah, but no-one should talk about "quote Intellectual Property unquote"
because it leads people to over-generalise between things that have nothing in
common. Now software is something that it easy to modify for millions of people
who have learned programming, but pharmaceuticals are totally different. To
modify a pharmaceutical in a useful way is extremely hard and then you'd have
to test your modification, so you couldn't come up with two issues that are
more different.

[KH] If economic gains are not guaranteed by private software rights, would
that not lead to less innovation on the part of computer companies, software

[RMS] I don't know, and I don't care.

[KH] Well, that's an interesting response. Why don't you care?

[RMS] Because I want freedom more than I want innovation. If somebody develops
an innovative proprietary program I'm not going to use it, because I have to
reject it in order to keep my freedom. So as I see it, there's no value in that
innovation at all unless and until we develop a free program which embodies the
same improvement. So I would just as soon that he not develop that innovative
but freedom-trampling program because it's an attractive nuisance. Other
people, who don't care as much about their freedom, may be lured to give up
their freedom by that attractive feature on a poisonous program. So what I feel
is that those people should not develop that software. If you; a plan to
develop a proprietary program is a plan to set up a pitfall with bait to lure
people in, and you shouldn't do it, it's better to do nothing.

[KH] Were you brought up political?

[RMS] Uh, to some extent. My mother was a Liberal, like about more-or-less half
of the citizens of the US at the time and so to that extent I was political.

[KH] And you were I think a classic maths nerd, or a geek.

[RMS] Yes. By the way, before we have to finish I'd like to talk a bit about
New Zealand's recent copyright law.

[KH] You may

[RMS] which I think is a bit more important than my childhood. I mean, I'm more
than happy to talk about that if we had an hour, but ...

[RMS] One of the big obstacles to Free Software today is the adoption of laws
that prohibit Free Software. In the US there are two of them, one of them is
patent law, of course that's not limited to Free Software, any program can be
the target of that sort of prohibition in the US, but it's particularly bad for
us, because our goal is to supply all of people's software needs, so if there's
one thing we're not allowed to do, that is a serious problem. But the other
prohibition has to do with Digital Restrictions Managememt, and that -- which
is also called DRM for short -- means publishing things in encrypted secret
formats to stop people, to control how users use their copies. For instance
DVDs are designed this way, and the format of a DVD was originally secret, and
the companies that set up this conspiracy required everyone making a DVD player
to sign a contract with them promising that those DVD players would restrict
the users just like all the other DVD players, which by the way is why there's
no innovation or progress in DVD players. But someone figured out the secret
and wronte a free program that you could put in your computer and use it to
watch a DVD. You could also use it to copy a DVD, which I don't see any reason
why you shouldn't be able to do.

[KH] As long as you're not selling it.

[RMS] Uh, yeah. So the point is, these companies weren't; having failed with
secrecy then got the US to adopt a law prohibiting the distribution of those
free programs that you could use to escape from the digital handcuffs that they
had built in to those formats. Well today we can see Digital Restriictions
Management abounds, for instance Microsoft does it, and Apple does it, Google
does it, and Amazon and Sony do it in their e-book readers the Amazon Swindle
and the Sony Shredder so, which you should never buy, you shouldn't get any
product that's designed to put handcuffs on you. But of course we don't just
want to boycott that, we want to develop Free Software that you could use, for
instance, to watch your DVD, read your e-book, listen to the music record that
looks like a CD but isn't one, and all these other things that you might want
to do, which you have a perfect right to do, even; you have a right to watch
the DVD, you have a right to read the book, but the Free Software to do this is
censored in the US, and also now to some in extent in New Zealand, because of
that bad law. The New Zealand law is not quite as nasty as the US law but
that's no excuse for it to exist at all.

[KH] Man is born free, Richard, but everywhere is in chains.

[RMS] I'm afraid so.

[KH] One final question ...

[RMS] Especially now with Bush

[KH] Well you haven't got much longer to wait for a change in that direction

[RMS] I'm afraid his successor will be no better.

[KH] Oh, do you think?

[RMS] It's clear; it's not very likely that Nader will win, or Cynthia
McKinney, and other than that Im afraid his successor is going to be no better.

[KH] Erm, you're right, we haven't got an hour to spend talking about you being
a maths nerd, but I do have one final question from a listener who says, Google
is powered by Free Software, but is doesn't distribute software, it provides a
service. Because it does not in the main distribute software, it's not subject
to your GPL license. So, you now have a license to handle this problem but it's
too late, no-one uses it, do you concede, asks the listener, that

[RMS] Concede what?

[KH] That you might wake up one day, find that Google is bigger and scarier
than Microsoft ever was, and think, oops, my fault.

[RMS] This is a number of important issues that have been mixed together, so
that it's impossible to answer without separating out the individual issues.

[KH] Feel free to separate.

[RMS] First of all, is Google doing something wrong when they improve certain
programs in the Gnu plus Linux system and then run them on their servers? I
don't think so, I think that's part of what everyone's entitled to do. You also
are entitled to make improvements in a program and run them. Secondly, is
Google doing something wrong with those servers? That's a different question,
and I would say yes and no, depending on which server it is, which service. For
instance, people mostly think of Google's search engine, I don't see anything
wrong with that, at least not with regard to the issues of Free Software, and I
don't think that there's anything wrong with running a search engine or with
using one. Now people might say if Google's search engine is the main one will
they have too much influence, maybe so, that's a very different kind of issue,
and not related to the Free Software issue. But Google has other servers, for
instance there is something called Google Docs which is a spreadsheet and
wordprocessor, and how does it work? Well first of all, Google distributes a
proprietary program to your computer and it gets installed in your computer but
you don't notice this because it's just inside your browser. So for this reason
people do it, and they don't even realise they're running a proprietary
program. Well this is totally unacceptable. But what about the server itself?
It is a; the server is running a combination of some Free Software that Google
got, and perhaps improved, and some other programs that Google simply wrote.
And I don't see anything wrong with that, but using somebody ele's server to do
your wordprocessing or your spreadsheet is a terrible mistake, because it means
you give up control of your computing. You're doing your computing in somebody
else's server and you can't have freedom if you do that, you just mustn't do
it. But this has nothing to do with whether the software in Google's server is
free. I hope it is free, because Google deserves to have control over the
software running in it's servers and if it runs a proprietary program it's lost
control, but that's a separate issue from your control of your computing, and
to do that you've got to do it in your computer or a computer you control with
your copy of a Free program. So even if Google were to publish all of the
software in the Google Docs server, well that would be a nice contribution to
the community but it wouldn't solve this problem, the only solution is run your
wordprocessor on your computer. But this only applies to certain kinds of
servers -- the search engine is a server too but it is doing a different kind
of job, it's not doing your computing, you're just looking through Google's
data, well that's a totally different kind of situation and a different issue.

[KH] All right, thanks for that. We're nearly out of time; is there, do you
compare what you're talking about to Monsanto's Terminator gene seeds?

[RMS] Yes, that is similar, one of the few other areas outside of information
and computers where there's something similar to this issue is in agriculture,
and the reason is farmers can copy their plants' (and animals)(?). Of course
it's not totally the same, they're not exact copies, they exchange, recombine
their genes, but it's similar. So forbidding farmers to save their seeds is
evil, and it's not just Monsanto which is trying to do this technically, but
there are many patented plant varieties and the, and also there are plant
varieties with patented genes, also from Monsanto I believe, and farmers get
sued because their corn crop received pollen from genetically modified corn in
another field, perhaps miles away, and now has, a certain fraction of them have
the patented gene and so Monsanto sues them for patent infringement. So
essentially Monsanto is sabotaging agriculture.

[KH] I appreciate your time, thank-you, and thank-you for putting up with such
a disruptive morning, what with fire alarms and all

[RMS] Sure, and remember; people should be free to share, non-commercially,
exact copies of any published work because sharing is friendship and to attack
sharing is to attack the bonds of society.

[KH] Well, in the spirit of friendship and upholding the bonds of society
Richard, and at your request, the audio of todays program will be provided in
the non-proprietary, that is "Free" OGG Vorbis format as well as the usual
formats from our web page radionz.co.nz/saturday later on today. Richard
Stallman, and you can get details of his presence and speaking engagements if
you go on our website as well.


This Creative Commons New Zealand Public  enables You (all capitalised terms defined below) to view, edit, modify, translate and distribute Works worldwide for Non-commercial purposes under the terms of this licence, provided that You credit the Original Author.
"The Licensor"
agree as follows:
1. Definitions

    * "Adaptation" means any work created by the editing, modification, adaptation or translation of the Work in any media (however a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this ). For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronisation of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this Licence.
    * "Attribution" means acknowledging all the parties who have contributed to and have rights in the Work or Collection under this ; and "Attribute" has a corresponding meaning.
    * "Collection" means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other separate and independent works, assembled into a collective whole.
    * "License" means this Creative Commons New Zealand Public Licence agreement.
    * "Licensor" means one or more legally recognised persons or entities offering the Work under the terms and conditions of this .
    * "Non-Commercial" means "not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". The exchange of the Work for other copyright works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyright works.
    * "Original Author" means the individual(s) or entity/ies who created the Work.
    * "Work" means the work protected by copyright which is offered under the terms of this .
    * "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this  who has not previously violated the terms of this Licence with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this Licence despite a previous violation.
    * For the purpose of this , when not inconsistent with the context, words in the singular number include the plural number.

2.  Terms
2.1 Subject to the terms of this agreement the Licensor hereby grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,  for Non-Commercial use and for the duration of copyright in the Work.
You may:

    * copy the Work;
    * incorporate the Work into one or more Collections;
    * copy the Work as incorporated in any Collection; and
    * publish, distribute, archive, perform or otherwise disseminate the Work, or the Work as incorporated in any Collection, to the public.

All these rights may be exercised in any material form in any media whether now known or hereafter created. All these rights also include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats.
You must not:

    * impose any terms on the use to be made of the Work or the Work as incorporated in a Collection that alter or restrict the terms of this  or any rights granted under it or have the effect or intent of restricting the ability to exercise those rights;
    * impose any digital rights management technology on the Work, the Work as incorporated in a Collection that alters or restricts the terms of this  or any rights granted under it or has the effect or intent of restricting the ability to exercise those rights;
    * make any Adaptations;
    * sublicense the Work;
    * falsely Attribute the Work to someone other than the Original Author;
    * subject the Work to any derogatory treatment as defined in the Copyright Act 1994.

You must:

    * make reference to this  (by Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), spoken word or as appropriate to the media used) on all copies of the Work and Collections published, distributed, performed or otherwise disseminated or made available to the public by You;
    * recognise the Licensor's / Original Author's right of Attribution (right to be identified) in any Work and Collection that You publish, distribute, perform or otherwise disseminate to the public and ensure that You credit the Licensor / Original Author as appropriate to the media used. You will however remove such a credit if requested by the Licensor/Original Author;
    * not assert or imply any connection with sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author or Licensor of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author or Licensor; and
    * to the extent reasonably practicable, keep intact all notices that refer to this , in particular the URI, if any, that the Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work.

Additional Provisions
2.2. Further licence from the Licensor
Each time You publish, distribute, perform or otherwise disseminate

    * the Work; or
    * the Work as incorporated in a Collection

the Licensor agrees to offer to the relevant third party making use of the Work ("User") (in any of the alternatives set out above) a licence to use the Work on the same terms and conditions as granted to You hereunder.
2.3. This  does not affect any rights that the User may have under any applicable law, including fair use, fair dealing or any other legally recognised limitation or exception to copyright infringement.
2.4. All rights not expressly granted by the Licensor are hereby reserved, including but not limited to, the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a licensing body, such as a collecting society, royalties for any use of the Work which results in commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
2.5. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or via a licensing body such as a collecting society, for any use of the Work which does not result in commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
3. Warranties and Disclaimer
Except as required by law or as otherwise agreed in writing between the parties, the Work is licensed by the Licensor on an "as is" and "as available" basis and without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
4. Limit of Liability
Subject to any liability which may not be excluded or limited by law the Licensor shall not be liable on any legal basis (including without limitation negligence) and hereby expressly excludes all liability for loss or damage howsoever and whenever caused to You.
5. Termination
The rights granted to You under this  shall terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this Licence. Individuals or entities who have received Collections from You under this Licence, however, will not have their Licences terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those Licences. Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will survive any termination of this Licence.
6. General
6.1. The validity or enforceability of the remaining terms of this agreement is not affected by the holding of any provision of it to be invalid or unenforceable.
6.2. This  constitutes the entire Licence Agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication in any form.
6.3. A person who is not a party to this  shall have no rights under the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 to enforce any of its terms.
7. On the role of Creative Commons
7.1. Creative Commons does not authorise either the Licensor or the User to use the trade mark "Creative Commons" or any related trade mark, including the Creative Commons logo, except to indicate that the Work is licensed under a Creative Commons . Any permitted use has to be in compliance with the Creative Commons trade mark usage guidelines at the time of use of the Creative Commons trade mark. These guidelines may be found on the Creative Commons website or be otherwise available upon request from time to time. For the avoidance of doubt this trade mark restriction does not form part of this Licence.
7.2. Creative Commons Corporation does not profit financially from its role in providing this  and will not investigate the claims of any Licensor or user of the Licence.
7.3. One of the conditions that Creative Commons Corporation requires of the Licensor and You is an acknowledgement of its limited role and agreement by all who use the  that the Corporation is not responsible to anyone for the statements and actions of You or the Licensor or anyone else attempting to use or using this Licence.
7.4. Creative Commons Corporation is not a party to this , and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection to the Work or in connection to the Licence, and in all events is not liable for any loss or damage resulting from the Licensor's or Your reliance on this Licence or on its enforceability.