User Blogs - Entry for jamesthompson
|
Syndicate jamesthompson's entries |
2004/12/21
Copyright...Copywrong - Part IIForewordJust like my first blog on "FOSS in the Church" this second one has hit a nerve, although in a much more negative way. I shouldn't be surprised, and indeed I'm not because people are very passionate about the issue of copyright, especially when it comes to the FOSS movement as a community. Perhaps I can clarify some of my views here. Note: I am working on a more extensive treatment of this subject to come out after the first of the year along with the continuation of my "FOSS in the Church" posts. To start...I am a pragmatic FOSS user, I develop and use FOSS because I believe the process to be the best model for software development. When I can't contribute by development time I give my money to the FSF, OSI and various individual projects. However I am not a Free Software purist by any stretch of the imagination. I prefer Free Software and its emphasis on the "four freedoms" much more than proprietary software systems but I do not moralize the issue. Copyright...its purposeIn my first posting on this subject I cited the Statute of Anne as being the first "modern" copyright law, and based on what I have found, that is true so I will continue to work from it as a base. This statute effectively identified the three roles that individuals and companies can fit into in regards to copyright. They can either be creators, publishers or consumers. Lets take a moment to define those roles a little:
- Creators - These are the people who through skill, originality and work have produced something original and potentially of value.
- Publishers - These individuals or companies have the ability and will to duplicate and redistribute a created work.
- Consumers - These are the individuals that for whatever reason wish to obtain a particular work.
These definitions are simple but should suffice for this discussion. By examining the Statute of Anne we see that there are two concerns involved, (1) protection of the authors livelihood and (2) protection of the consumers rights to use. The statute granted for a limited time exclusive rights regarding the distribution of their work. The statute also sought to protect consumer's rights to do anything with what they had purchased. But this was in the days of the printing press and was specific to authors, so what value does this have for us today? It gives us the basic premise of copyright, protection of the author for a limited time with certain protections also to be granted to the consumer. Now that we have this as a base I can explain my basic presupposition or premise: Creators deserve to be compensated for their work if their work is deemed to have value. Now before folks start jumping on me again, let me clarify: compensation should only come from those who deem the work of value and who wish to obtain it, don't want to give the impression that I support artistic socialism or anything like that. Some people will still disagree but the truth is we don't question a creators right to be compensated if their work is deemed of value anywhere except in the realm of "creative" works. The problem that arises now is how to assign value and thus cost and how best to ensure the creator is compensated fairly. Who has the right to determine the value, well that should be mutually decided between the creator and the consumer but we aren't in an economic framework that permits much bartering so
usually the price is set by the creator. But how should the author collect what they wish? Well in software usually it is done by building all the factors of production into a price that is attached to the software itself, either in physically distributable form or in some other manner that is attached to the distribution of the work. The factors that are considered in determining the value of software usually include the following:
- Development costs (time spent in development)
- Distribution costs (price of packaging or possibly factoring in bandwidth costs for downloads)
- A margin of profit (Usually based off the percieved continuing value of the software)
- Ongoing support - Ocassionally the on-going cost associated with included services or other additions to the basic software are factored in.
With these in mind how do we determine the best method for the creator to be compensated. Well here we encounter another tough area. There is no right to profit, income in excess of necessity, protected in copyright law. And some will argue that development costs have already been paid by the time software is
released and thus should be made Free. Well this latter scenario is only partially true, in some cases like Webmin, the code is held "hostage" and this indeed is the case and when development costs are met the product is Freed. But in the corporate world it is usually venture capital and investments that fund initial development and that has to get paid back, plus interest, in many cases so development costs are not always paid in full at the time software is released. Profit is not a guarantee so I will not argue its merits but it is usually tied to the last factor I listed above as well as being associated with the percieved ongoing use value of the product. So if we focus now of development and distribution costs which I hope no one will protest we can get closer to an answer. A brief aside...Currently, and hopefully always, participation in the FOSS method and community is entirely voluntary with creators deciding whether or not to participate. This is a great thing and ensures that their is no compulsion to give away rights creators might otherwise claim. But the method and community only remain strong as long as this is voluntary. If at any point the FOSS method becomes the sole way to do things I forsee problems that will dampen innovation in many areas; this is my opinion but it still should be considered. Back on track...Assuming that we want developers to recieve compensation for their development and distribution costs in a fair manner, how can this be done? Well distribution costs should be nearly fixed and thus establish the base price for which something is offered. In the case of physical distribution you have costs of materials and in electronic distribution their is cost of bandwidth, in the latter situation many times the bandwidth is either shared or multi-purposed so establishing a firm cost for this form of distribution may be difficult. But that was easy, distribition costs are usually handled by a publisher, not necessarily by the author directly, so the only cost we will concern ourselves with is the development cost. Development cost is still rather difficult to define because the creator has to account for time spent, the value of that time and other factors. In the case of Webmin development costs are recouped up front, prior to Freeing the product. In many FOSS projects the development time is donated and thus has no cost which is passed on, but what about developers who do wish to be compensated for the time? Well they could do like Webmin, but it is doubtful that would work in every possible situation. So what are the options, well in Free Software the right to redistribution is given away so that channel of potential gain is limited or non-existent except where customers are buying purely to support, which does happen, but like Webmin's method may not always be optimal. So what else is there? non-Free licensing. In our current world non-Free licensing provides a solution for those developers who want to maintain this channel of gain. The point of my argument is not that FOSS is bad or what not, if I thought that I wouldn't use, contribute and support it. My point is that it is on no more moral ground than non-FOSS development. The problem we have is a screwed up system that is in serious need of reform. So what should be done to fix the system. Well I don't think Free Software is the answer because it is too extreme in my opinion. I would like to propose a potential middle ground. Fixing a broken systemFirst lets look at the four freedoms associated with Free Software:
- Freedom 0 - Freedom to run the program for any purpose
- Freedom 1 - Freedom to study and modify the program
- Freedom 2 - Freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor
- Freedom 3 - The freedom to improve the progam, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
I choose to clasify these freedoms this way:
- Freedom of use
- Freedom of private derivation
- Freedom of distribution
- Freedom of public derivation
The first part of my solution would be to make Freedoms 0 and 1 a part of copyright law that is explicitly and unwaveringly protected as a right of the consumer. This of course would mean that all software would have to make its source code available for those who wished to exercise Freedom 1. I would however leave Freedoms 2 and 3 up to the creators to decide in order to preserve every channel they may wish to use for recouping costs and deriving benefit from their work. I know this is not far enough for some but it would constitute a major step in correcting the horrible mess we have today. Of course I would also make any attempt by creators or publishers to thwart Freedoms 0 or 1 a criminal act reversing the DMCA and other such repressive things. That would be my solution. Final wordsBoy did I ever kick a hornets nest with my first post on this topic, but I avoided getting hurt and have put this out there to hopefully clarify my position. I still have every intention of publishing my more extensive and, what is looking like, heavily researched treatment of this subject after the first of the year. I hope this puts some of the more stirred up folks at ease now that you know I am not trying to come out against FOSS but rather keep all options open for protecting both creators and consumers. I hope this helps everyone. |
Trackback URL of this entry
http://www.libervis.com/x/modules/weblog/weblog-tb.php/21
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
 Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/21 15:34 Updated: 2004/12/21 15:34
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Thank you for this clarification. As far as i am concerned i wasn't thinking you are a FOSS enemy in the first place, but i did and still do consider your views simply wrong. This is indeed my opinion and is showned to be an opinion of many other free software folks outhere. Basically, i simply don't agree with your proposal to reform copyright. You invite a copyright system reform while the free software movement is already doing it. I know i know, if free software would dominate creators will loose the right to choose the "bad choice" (which may still be the freedom they should have). But this is actually not what we want. Our weapon is influence and persuasion, not force and thus if the copyright system with all those "bad choices" will dissapear it will dissappear slowly and naturally when a great majority of people accept free software way. Quote:
jamesthompson wrote:
So what are the options, well in Free Software the right to redistribution is given away so that channel of potential gain is limited or non-existent except where customers are buying purely to support, which does happen, but like Webmin's method may not always be optimal. So what else is there? non-Free licensing. In our current world non-Free licensing provides a solution for those developers who want to maintain this channel of gain.
This is simply not true. If we'll go a bit deeper into the economic potentials of free software than we may potentially find many new ways of recouping the development costs. And i'll give you a concrete example. GNU GPL does not poses a restriction on the price for distribution which gives you an economic opportunity to use distribution channel to recoup both distribution and development costs, but still not rising the distribution price too much. How? Well, you calculate the expected number of sold distribution services (CD's, downloads etc.) and calculate what you'd need to recoup the development costs. Then you multiply the development costs with the distribution costs to get a final compensation sum that you want to achieve. What you do then is price the distribution services so that after meeting the expected number of sold services the compensation is whole. I am sure this is just one of the possible, fully legal and still fully moral way of getting compensated with free software. Besides all that, you still don't seem to understand the way that a cooperative community works. Even for businesses (not only volonteers) the fact that the rich pool of reusable source code is open to them means benefits as they are saving a considerable amounts in development costs to the potential point where development costs are minimal leaving recoupment of distribution costs as their primary concern, and this is all cool in free software world. Nevertheless, i see where are your standings, but i simply don't and can't agree with it. I especially cannot understand how one can completely ignore any moral connections to the issue, while at the same time claiming that the creator has the "inherent rights" about something. Where is this belief in "inherent rights" coming from? Isn't it that even if you try to completely divide moralism from the issue, you're still reasoning by using the moral terms (rights and freedoms are a moral issues). You actually gave me an inspiration to write a new article about "free software moralism" focusing exactly on the moral side of the free software issues and the difference between free software and open source movement in regard to it. Thank you Daniel
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/21 16:08 Updated: 2004/12/21 16:08
jamesthompson
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 211
There is a problem with your example though...anyone who gets your program can redistribute it for free or simply at a greatly reduced price compared to what the developers might be asking forcing them to either lower their price and delay being able to recoup the costs or giving up all together on any effort to recoup the costs.
The inherent right is for everyone who works to be fairly compensated for their work, again assuming their work has value. It is the same reasoning that entitles me to be paid for my job as web administrator or for the mechanic to be paid for what he does. Work is being done that has value and that deserves to be compensated.
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/21 16:45 Updated: 2004/12/21 16:46
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Quote:
jamesthompson wrote:
There is a problem with your example though...anyone who gets your program can redistribute it for free or simply at a greatly reduced price compared to what the developers might be asking forcing them to either lower their price and delay being able to recoup the costs or giving up all together on any effort to recoup the costs.
Yes, that is why i said that the calculation should be made taking into consideration the *expected* amount of distributions services sold considering the price and the quality. If i make a program, it is still pretty possible and thus reasonable to expect about say 100 sold distribution services and i will form the price so that after these 100 sellings i get compensated as i wanted to. Consider that the development costs in free software world are smaller so the final compensation requirement is not that big as with proprietary software. Also, there is an incentive for users to buy a CD version instead downloading for free (even if that free download would appear that soon) as they might like to get it packed on a CD and even more, support the dev by that. It can work! Quote: The inherent right is for everyone who works to be fairly compensated for their work, again assuming their work has value. It is the same reasoning that entitles me to be paid for my job as web administrator or for the mechanic to be paid for what he does. Work is being done that has value and that deserves to be compensated. And that reasoning is an ethical/moral one. Yet you still try to point out that morality and ethics doesn't have anything to do with this. Also, noone in the free software movement disputes the moral right to compensation for the work done. Thanks Daniel
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/21 17:00 Updated: 2004/12/21 17:01
jamesthompson
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 211
But you can't accurately gauge distribution because there is no exclusive right...you could potentially have only 1 or 2 people pay to get it before it is all over the place and no one then is willing to pay. The model is too speculative and dependent on the "kindness" of others. Also how are development costs any less in the FOSS world? Is FOSS developer time worth less? Do they have less living expenses to deal with? How is it possible that FOSS developers would somehow require less compensation for their work? Even if you argue that they can build off of existing work that still requires lots of integration and code checking, it just changes what their time is spent doing, not necessarily that they're still spending the time. Quote:
Also, noone in the free software movement disputes the moral right to compensation for the work done.
Yet RMS argues that software should not have owners and that those who write it should willingly give up methods by which they may be compensated for their work, they may not dispute the right to compensation but they sure don't work to hard to find ways to protect it...they come up with some alternatives, but none of them are protected because the author is asked to give away so many rights. This is fine as long as the choice to give away these rights remains voluntary. My proposed revisiosn to current copyright practice form a nice middle ground where both creators and consumers are well protected, but the system is still open to allow for FOSS since the creators can still give up their rights. The system needs reform, but full-tilt Free Software is not the best solution.
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/21 19:31 Updated: 2004/12/21 19:31
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Quote:
jamesthompson wrote:
But you can't accurately gauge distribution because there is no exclusive right...you could potentially have only 1 or 2 people pay to get it before it is all over the place and no one then is willing to pay. The model is too speculative and dependent on the "kindness" of others.
You sound like the non-free software development is always a sure thing, like you can always be sure to count on full compensation. But there are so much proprietary software makers that simply don't suceed in generating much compensation and revenue simply because of the saturated market, bugs (that only he can fix) etc. What the possible monetary reward always depends on is exposure, the popularity of the project and this is the same for free software. If your program is popular enough (and free software stands a better chance to be) than you could surely count on much more than just 1 or two sells. Besides, it is pretty easy today to add some incentive you your offer becide the CD cased pack..everyone can print some basic manuals or add a bonus CD with software etc. The ones who expect significant monetary benefits will usually be ready to put that little bit effort to create more incentives. Quote:
Also how are development costs any less in the FOSS world? Is FOSS developer time worth less? Do they have less living expenses to deal with? How is it possible that FOSS developers would somehow require less compensation for their work? Even if you argue that they can build off of existing work that still requires lots of integration and code checking, it just changes what their time is spent doing, not necessarily that they're still spending the time.
Yes, free availability of the code makes development easier. If there's no free pool of code to choose from they'd have to write their own code from scratch. I don't think that this is the same then finding an existing compatible code and integrating it. You're still using somebody elses ideas and work already invested to it and starting off of that instead from bare zero. Quote:
Yet RMS argues that software should not have owners and that those who write it should willingly give up methods by which they may be compensated for their work, they may not dispute the right to compensation but they sure don't work to hard to find ways to protect it...they come up with some alternatives, but none of them are protected because the author is asked to give away so many rights.
And RMS argues right as software indeed should not have owners because owning software (and information in general) is impossible as much as trading it is. Owning a piece of software means having the ultimate control over it wherever it goes, a total monopoly. You are mixing "work" with the product of the work. A work is something they should be compensated for and that is what RMS doesn't disputes. The question is in the way in which a developer will be compensated and we believe that "selling" software (invalid term, impossible act) is utterly the wrong way. We don't mind if a programmer goes on giving bug fixing services for money as he is there directly charging for the work he's done. Why do we trupet "services" as currently the main compensation/revenue source with FOSS? Because "services" imply work - it is a model where your work is being compensated directly, but the product of your work should remain free and monopolizing over it is not a valid way for compensating for your work. It still seems to me that you totally misunderstand the principles and merits of cooperation and cooperative communities, it's benefits and it's ethics. If GPL was any different than it is, you'll get something that simply won't function. Either it will be still proprietary breaking at least one of the *essential* four freedoms or if modified to allow even more freedom to consumer it would be what you claim for that it is now. It isn't! To be honest, i will find it interesting to read your proposal on the copyright system reform, but if it'll be based on your previous arguments brought here, i wont be able to support it, but in a contrary, i'll be against it, sorry. Thank you Daniel
My short take on it.
Posted: 2004/12/21 20:58 Updated: 2004/12/21 20:58
r_a_trip
Discoverer
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 26
This is a solution looking for a non-existant problem.
James, try to wrap your head around the fact that every author has all the rigths in the world to license his work as he sees fit. That is completely granted by the Berne Convention.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. You are trying to fix a system that is not broken. Authors are well protected.
Trust me that FOSS developers will keep placing generous rights on their code and that proprietary companies will keep restricting them.
Don't worry about your virtual ghost of starving programmers. The copyright system is working. Just because you can't see the long term outcome, doesn't mean we should change laws to accomodate soothing of short-term anxieties.
You absolutely seem to ignore the Commercial FOSS companies that employ more and more FOSS programmers. The Commercial FOSS market is expanding rapidly, creating value and payed for jobs.
Your proposal is no middle ground either. It doesn't change anything.
If an entity gives me the right to use and permission for inhouse derivation, but nothing more, it just means I have gotten code under a proprietary license. This is what the Microsoft shared source license offers today.
If an entity gives me the right to use, modify privately/publicly and right to redistribute, it is pure FOSS. No difference what so ever with what we already have now.
I'd nearly say "Have faith in the capitalistic system", but I'll refrain from that.
Your arguments are too complicated
Posted: 2004/12/21 21:15 Updated: 2004/12/21 21:15
It seems to me that you're ultimately complicating the issue of copyright rather than clarifying it.
Here's the core issue: our capitalist system, ideally, works on the principle of a free market i.e. you are free to sell a product at any price that you believe consumers will pay. If you set the price too high, you won't sell as much of your product as you might wish. If you set the price too low, you may not make a profit.
This system works quite well when the product is a physical object that is difficult or impossible to copy. In this case, the equation more or less boils down to the classic supply vs. demand curve.
In the case of the product being information, it is no longer feasible to prevent unauthorised copying. Oh, you can attempt to put roadblocks in place like DRM or encryption, but such roadblocks are circumvented eventually--often quite quickly.
In other words, those that choose to make a business out of selling information have no sure way of forcing people to pay. Even copyright law can be flaunted, and often is. Enforcement of copyright law is only effective up to a point, as the RIAA and MPAA are discovering to their chargrin.
So--unauthorised copying is a fact of life. All you can ultimately do is rely on the morals/ethics of the consumers. If enough consumers feel that you have a right to sell your information, and that the information is worth the money they pay for it, with any luck you'll make a profit. If not--well, no laws will help you, no matter how draconian, because there is no way to achieve 100% enforcement of those laws.
When it comes to the issue of free software, what is happening is that certain producers of information are willing to give it away, for the good of all. Many of them use copyright law to impose the restriction that if you modify the information that you also make it freely available, but enforcement of that restriction is no easier for free software than it is for commerical software.
No modification of copyright law is going to resolve the core issue of unauthorised copying, and likely no technology will either. At it's most fundemental, information is simply not something that can be treated as physical property. Those that choose to sell information are therefore always walking on thin ice--they are attempting to restrict the spread of information for profit, which ultimately is not possible.
And yet--for centuries information has been sold, and people have made a profit from it. This is only due to two factors: (a) the relative difficulty of copying information in such form as books when the technology didn't exist to make that easy, and (b) because there are enough people who accept that producers of information ought to be paid for their time and effort in creating it. Of course, we're now down to only one factor: (b). The human factor. The moral/ethical factor.
RMS is a guy who feels that information should always be free. There are many others starting to feel that way too. Whether this movement will ultimate result in the demise of the selling of information remains to be seen. You could argue it would be a bad thing--people won't write any more books, perform any more music, make any more movies, or write any more software, if they don't get paid for it. But somehow I don't think it will come to that--a new balance will be arrived at, which might not involve the obscene profit levels of the past. I doubt that all consumers will decide that information should never, ever be paid for, under any circumstances.
I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/22 5:29 Updated: 2004/12/22 5:29
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
James proposes a system in which completely closed source software cannot exist, and people disagree with it because "the current system is fine"??? It's not fine, it's broken on all three sides.
I know it's hopeless to force your work to be rewarded using copyright these days. In principle copyright is a good idea, but it might be getting obsolete because now everyone can share anything with anyone at almost no cost.
So, how to make a living as a creator? There is a quite simple solution: let them pay for feature requests. "You want this feature? OK, that will be about X hours work, so it will cost X*Y=Z."
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/22 7:28 Updated: 2004/12/22 7:28
Quote: The inherent right is for everyone who works to be fairly compensated for their work, again assuming their work has value. This is simply not true. If I choose to work hard at my hobby. I have no right to be compensated (by others) for that work. The work itself may be my compensation. If my hobby is gardening, the vegetables may be my compensation. If it is a bad year, I may work even harder and have nothing to show for it. No one is forcing you to go out and write programs and try to sell them to someone in a non-free manner. If you do so, that is your choice. If you then can't sell it because the free stuff that someone else chose to write gives a better value, that is your problem. A Nony Mouse
Re: Thanks but...
Posted: 2004/12/22 7:32 Updated: 2004/12/22 7:32
Quote: My proposed revisiosn to current copyright practice form a nice middle ground where both creators and consumers are well protected, but the system is still open to allow for FOSS since the creators can still give up their rights. The system needs reform, but full-tilt Free Software is not the best solution. If your revision will still permit free software, some of us will still choose free software and those who don't will still face the same hard to beat adversary that free software represents to non-free software. A Nony Mouse
 You lost me
Posted: 2004/12/22 10:56 Updated: 2004/12/22 10:56
So what's wrong with copyright? (Besides the absurd time limits). Everything your talking about can be done through a license similar to the GPL with your new restrictions on distribution or what not. Why do we have to change copyright law - which, btw, would in fact negatively effect OSS? Copyright by and large works for everyone - proprietary and FOSS alike, authors and distributors, users and consumers. The only thing really wrong that I can see are the limit extensions of the past 30 - 40 years. License your works the way you see fit - I'll license mine under the GPL, with the current protection of copyright just as it is.
Seriously - your premise is ridiculous. Your pretending to want to protect MY interests as an author by claiming that FOSS licenses are bad for me and my ability to be compensated, when I'M THE GUY that thinks its working just fine the way it is. If you want to be compensated (monetarily, it would seem, is your interest) in some other way, use another license. (And if your not being compensated as you seem to think many developers are, maybe you should consider a career change...) I think Sun's license is pretty much what your describing, so go use that - but there's certainly nothing in your arguments (so far) that would necessitate a change in copyright law...
Tangent - did you consider WHY the original copyright in the US was for a term of 14 years, and later renewable for another 14 years? This was during an era where you might copyright a book that would take 3 - 4 years to get published from New York to San Francisco depending on popularity, printing costs vs. sales, and the expense and time of distribution channels. A REALLY good author could make a living at it, most would have to have day job to pay the rent. And yet, we had no shortage of literature... Today, JK Rowling can sell 5 million (if I heard right) copies of her book world wide in one day. Given the reasoning behind copyright - 'to secure for a limited time' rights for the author to make a buck on his/her work before being distributed for the common good, copyrights should be LIMITED in this day and age, not extended. Doubly so for software if you ask me - Look up the saga of "Dragon; Naturally Speaking". A software program so advanced in logarithmic voice detection and analytics that it could have changed the entire landscape of voice recognition systems in 1995. And now locked in a vault because the author made one bad decision to sell it to a company that sunk itself right after securing the rights to it. The author can't recreate it now, we don't have access to it, and the world is stuck with truly pathetic alternatives. What a waste...
PS - your value equation is nullified at point 1; Development costs. I witnessed first hand the spending of almost 1 billion dollars over a year and a half for a trading system that didn't work. 300+ developers on two continents worked 16 hour day averages on venture capital money, and after literally 18 months the project was shut down since they didn't have a single piece of working code. Time + Effort does NOT = value. Value is determined by usefulness, quality, and demand - and has exacly nothing to do with TIME or EFFORT. Time and effort might decimate any profit you hoped to gain, but it has NO impact on VALUE (or quality for that matter). The best piece of code ever written ("hello world"?) is essentially worthless. What we've done with what we learned from that code is priceless. Should that author have been compensated for his worthless program because it led to more useful programs? Should he get perpetual royalties on those more useful programs for his 10 minutes of effort? Would it have had any impact at all if he had tried to charge for it or limit its distribution? Do you get why the hornets are buzzing now?
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/22 11:39 Updated: 2004/12/22 11:45
r_a_trip
Discoverer
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 26
James proposes a system in which completely closed source software cannot exist, and people disagree with it because "the current system is fine"?
It doesn't solve a thing if you are allowed to poke around in the code, but are not allowed to do anything useful or constructive with it. For non-coders it wouldn't change a damn thing.
With a forced "opening" of the code, but restricted to personal use, you just make sure an end-user (not a coder) gets the code with the app, but the means to do anything about deficiencies in the code are not there. The end-user cannot use that code.
In the current situation it is not a problem that there are solutions that are completely closed. End-users could choose not to use them. With FOSS you know code is being vetted and fixed. If not, you can find someone who will fix the code for amount X and then the fix can be made publicly accessible, or not.
With our new fangled copyright proposal, you can personally modify the code. Wow, I can see granny pour over the MS Office source code already to make extensive improvements to her copy of the code base.
There is no use in read only code. Free Software is not about being able to see the code. It is about the freedom to use and share that code in the community. The new proposal tries to gloss over the issue of control with copyrighted proprietary code, without actually resolving anything.
James' proposal seems to be conceived from the view point that only proprietary development is capable of sustaining ongoing software projects. To soothe the Free Code loonies, the provision to look at the code and give (non-coding) endusers access to private derivation is thrown in.
Who are we trying to fool? I prefer FOSS above proprietary. I've read enough of the language in EULA's to know I don't want software with that kind of usage terms on it. Does anybody really think I will get warm fuzzies if proprietary megacorp will give me their source code with app X, to look at, when I license that app? No, it won't.
On compensation, if you want to sell me something, it beter be compelling and FOSS. Sell me convenience, swift delivery, innovation and support. Then we'll talk. I'm not willing to consider applications with Draconian EULA's and patented proprietary file formats.
So what now to "fix" copyright law? Make FOSS illegal? Is sucking the last dollar from closed source so important that copyright law needs to be "fixed"? Just because FOSS offers an alternative model that does away with proprietary?
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/22 14:05 Updated: 2004/12/22 14:05
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
I mainly agree with these comments.
Basing it's arguments mainly on the "right" to get compensated and a faulty presumption that proprietary licences (or hybrids) are the only ways to get compensated, the author is proposing something that simply wont work. It is evident from these comments as well as logical that proposing a reform while we already have FOSS is simply pointless.
If you really want to reform a system, than join the fight against proprietary software and software patents, fully support free software movement - this is the best thing you can do if you wish for a better system.
James, you are saying that moralism doesn't have anything to do with software licencing, and at the same time you are proposing a reform that is based on the very moral arguments - the rights (to compensate). But exactly the fact that you are still trying to divide moralism from this issue leads you to wrong assumptions and premises in regard to the authors rights...
Here is my crystal clear of things weather you agree or now: Free software movement and GPL is the foundation of the reformed system of the future and it allows both compensation to authors where needed and deserved as well as the belonging rights to consumers. It creates and then works in a cooperative community where everyone has the same rights and freedoms weather he is a developer, publisher or user. Every role fits into the same set of regulations provided by GPL and compatible licences.
Furthermore, free software movement handles software as one form of information naturally, without creating anything artificial, providing a fully open doors for the free flow of information, invention and outcoming wealth creation for all. It is indeed a moraly right choice as choosing free software means choosing not to exploit for your own sake, but share for both your own and your neighbours sake.
Free software as a development model, a an ideology is both morally and pragmatically perfect, but one ought to give it some serious consideration and keep an open mind to truly see it.
And face it, RMS is a genius and hero of our time. You will be locked, exploited, kept on the bottom of the IT world, live in much less advancing world if it wasnt for RMS and the movement he dared to start. Is it so hard to accept that fact.
Instead of lurking around to find some other solutions to non-existent problems we should work together to promote equal freedoms and rights for all. Open source movement may be doing a good job promoting free software under their pragmatic hat, but noone can't be sure that the same wouldn't happen if those heads didn't divide themselves to become open source movement in 1998.
Thanks
Daniel
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/22 15:39 Updated: 2004/12/22 15:39
Quote: If you really want to reform a system, than join the fight against proprietary software and software patents, fully support free software movement - this is the best thing you can do if you wish for a better system. If we could make some progress towards: Shorter term limits. Simplified laws. Actually protecting the authors versus the monied interests, that would be cool too. A Nony Mouse
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/23 5:57 Updated: 2004/12/23 6:27
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
Quote:
r_a_trip wrote:
It doesn't solve a thing if you are allowed to poke around in the code, but are not allowed to do anything useful or constructive with it. For non-coders it wouldn't change a damn thing.
I guess you're a non-coder. Guess what, I'm a coder, and it makes a huge difference to me if I get the source or not. Quote:
With a forced "opening" of the code, but restricted to personal use, you just make sure an end-user (not a coder) gets the code with the app, but the means to do anything about deficiencies in the code are not there. The end-user cannot use that code.
The non-coder end-user can hire me instead of waiting for the creator to fix a bug. Quote:
In the current situation it is not a problem that there are solutions that are completely closed. End-users could choose not to use them.
This is simply not true. There is proprietary software for which no FOSS alternative exists, and will never exist. Quote:
Free Software is not about being able to see the code. It is about the freedom to use and share that code in the community.
True, and that's why free software is not always The Right Thing. Quote:
James' proposal seems to be conceived from the view point that only proprietary development is capable of sustaining ongoing software projects.
Maybe you should have a better look at other things James wrote - including his open source projects. Quote:
To soothe the Free Code loonies...
You're the one using that word...  Quote:
So what now to "fix" copyright law? Make FOSS illegal? Is sucking the last dollar from closed source so important that copyright law needs to be "fixed"? Just because FOSS offers an alternative model that does away with proprietary?
You're barking up the wrong tree. The proposed fixes force proprietary software to be more like FOSS, not the other way around. Noone is talking about making FOSS illegal here. EDIT: removed a mistake in my logic
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/23 6:02 Updated: 2004/12/23 6:02
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
Quote:
libervisco wrote:
If you really want to reform a system, than join the fight against proprietary software and software patents, fully support free software movement - this is the best thing you can do if you wish for a better system.
Why don't you see this is a small step in the direction of the system you want?
In reply to various comments
Posted: 2004/12/23 6:24 Updated: 2004/12/23 6:38
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
People, I suggest you actually read the article instead of quickly scrolling trough it. It's not about giving more rights to starving programmers, it's about giving more rights to users, so they still have some of the rights FOSS gives in case they are using a proprietary program.
Clearly, this is not about the type of software for which FOSS alternatives exist. The grandmother should use openoffice.
Some software simply cannot exist as complete open source, for example because there is only a very small market for it. (QNX is a good example of this) It's not possible to get back the investment of creating it from voluntary gifts or a paid help desk. Someone who needs such software is usually willing to pay an insane lot of money for it, but of course would rather pay less. I bet there are also different situations where FOSS cannot work. Forcing creators/publishers of such software to provide the source code to consumers (where "consumer" is probably not you) is a very good idea.
EDIT: added example
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/23 9:12 Updated: 2004/12/23 9:12
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Quote:
I-am-PK wrote:
Why don't you see this is a small step in the direction of the system you want?
Quote:
I-am-PK wrote:
it's about giving more rights to users, so they still have some of the rights FOSS gives in case they are using a proprietary program.
Clearly, this is not about the type of software for which FOSS alternatives exist. The grandmother should use openoffice.
If that is so i don't see too much of a threat in it nor i object if you'll go about acting in that direction (making proprietary sofware less proprietary). But still, isn't it the most valuable goal here to make proprietary software free software? From one point of view you are trying to do just the half of the job. Quote:
I-am-PK wrote:
Some software simply cannot exist as complete open source, for example because there is only a very small market for it.
And this is why you my friends propose such a half way solution. Ah... Quote: I-am-PK erote:
There is proprietary software for which no FOSS alternative exists, and will never exist. Exactly what i was thinking.. you are actually saying "never" which is almost always a fatal logical mistake to make. NEVER say NEVER!!! There simply cannot be a strong enough argument to support that claim that some FOSS alternatives may never exist. To say so is a pure flaw in logic. Now, i may not mind as much your quest to make proprietary software less proprietary (instead of completely free as in your freedom), but i do object how you are rejecting every moral/ethical issue at the same time using ethics to support your arguments. Whenever you shout "rights to compensate", "freedom to choose" etc. you are automatically turning to ethics and yet, you are dismissing the fact that ethics and moralism has nothing to do with it. I think that this is exactly what leads you to these presumptions, both you PK and James as well as probably many other open source pragmatists. Influenced by the current mass-belief that money is the king and that only proprietary software is the way to be rewarded for your work you are blinded from what true cooperation and cooperative community means. It is no wonder then that you make statements like this: Quote: I-am-PK wrote:
It's not about giving more rights to starving programmers, it's about giving more rights to users,.. This statement seems to try to appeal to us free software people, but so clearly shows a total misunderstanding of us and free software movement as such, AGAIN! Why else would you choose to say "giving more rights to starving programmers"??? It would seem like you have a big prejudice about free software movement being too harsh on programmers and too kind to users still bluntly ignoring the fact that it was the programmers for which free software movement was started in the first place. I may be wrong about analyzing this statement like this and you feel free to ignore it if you're sure i am wrong.. Quote: I-am-PK wrote:
People, I suggest you actually read the article instead of quickly scrolling trough it. Oh yes, i suggest the same thing as i've read the article before posting my comments. I don't think people here are opposing your ideas because they didn't read the article. Thank you Daniel
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/23 11:51 Updated: 2004/12/23 11:56
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
The "starving programmers" come from a post by r_a_trip, and that same post made me believe he/she didn't read the article carefully. Of course you, Daniel, read everything carefully  . Anyone who thinks money is NOT king is a fool. I'm not happy about it either, but there is no point in denying it. It's nice that it is often possible to get rewarded for creating FOSS, but it's simply not always possible. Yeah, never say never, but I don't expect to see the revolution that will change all egocentrical capitalists into nice cooperating people, nor do I expect my grandchildren to see it. (for those who don't know: I'm 21, and have no children) As for the ethical/moral part... I would like to make a living in software development, and of course I don't want to harm anyone by doing that, but I'm not mother Theresa. I'll feed myself first, then I'll see if I can be nice to you. Call me an immoral pig, I'm only human. I'm not trying to appeal to anyone. I do understand the free software ideology. I would love it if all software could be developed freely. I would also love it if people wouldn't need a government to help each other and to stop them from harming each other. I would love it if food was distributed in a fair way so noone would be hungry. I would love it if we stopped poisoning the earth so our children and their children and theirs can live healthy lifes. In theory it's all possible, but it's not going to happen. All we can do is our best. A small step in the right direction is better than a failed revolution. I like the proposals for reforming copyright, because they stop the very worst abuse. To stop all abuse, we would have to get rid of copyright, and I don't believe that will happen. In a world where copyright law is enforcable, that is. Copyright is becoming obsolete, because everyone is able to copy anything these days. edit: moved the off-topic part to a forum post ("we are dinosaurs")
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/23 14:18 Updated: 2004/12/23 14:18
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Ok.. so going from this point of view that everything is a mess and you gotta accept and live with that adapting to that mess in order to survive, i can only say this: No matter how the situation is bad and no matter the odds of winning or loosing, a good and right battle has to be fought no matter what!
You think that it is enough to "fight" this fight by forming a hybrid between FOSS and proprietary software (reformed copyright system) and i think that nothing is enough but the complete fight for the complete and already existing ideology: free software movement.
We don't want to abolish freedom of choice, but we don't want to accept that there is no "wrong choice" either. Every social issue is a moral issue. So you go ahead, you are free to choose a proprietary licence, form and choose a hybrid between FOSS and prorietary (still harming at least one of the four freedoms). I will still think of that choice as unethical.
I don't care about being called RMS zealot or what so i will feel free to repeat after him: proprietary software is unethical! Users (which are both programmers and "users") should be free and for them to be free, software should be free as in freedom. Anything else means opposite to freedom, having a master, a software developer that has control over what you do with your computer, that exploits you.
Thank you
I'm confused....
Posted: 2004/12/23 17:20 Updated: 2004/12/23 17:20
"the truth is we don't question a creators right to be compensated if their work is deemed of value anywhere except in the realm of "creative" works."
Uh, what kind of "creators ... work ... of value" could you possibly be referring to that is somehow NOT "in the realm" of "creative works"?
Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitur?
It seems like you're trying to make some valid point or comparison here, but you sure ain't doin' it with that sentence -- it simply doesn't parse out logically.
Aside from that, I can't imagine how the underlying point is valid -- as far as I know, there is no "right to compensation" that is supported by any form of government or law that I know of. Where I live (the U.S.), there's certainly nothing in our Constitution to do with anyone's "right" to compensation for ANYTHING -- that document describes people's liberties, and how they should be protected from Governmental (and now, corporate) interference.
There are state LAWS that have to do with how employees are compensated, but these are societal RULES, not "rights", and have NOTHING to do with the "rights" you enjoy that are recognized by the Federal Government, and therefore can't (theoretically, anyway) be affected by the rules of one state or another.
Are you actually speaking of the kinds of "rights" that you seem to be, or are you really referring to the more general "right" and "wrong" that YOU SPECIFICALLY adhere to as part of your personal, moral code? If it's the latter, then you must be made to realize there are 6 billion different versions of these "rights" and "wrongs", and to make a statement like "we don't question a ... right", based on moral choices, is simply foolish. Surely you know that somewhere, there is SOMEONE, who DOES disagree with what YOU THINK is "right" or "wrong" in a given situation.
==================================
Here's some advice for when you get worked up about all the "theives" out there, wantonly "stealing" creator's "property". Try to calm your sense of personal, moral outrage, and repeat to yourself under your breath the following litany: "The purpose of copyright law is NOT to make publishers and authors rich, or to secure control for them at the expense of the public. The purpose of copyright is to serve the common good by incentivizing creation of new works. When copyright law fails in THIS SOLE purpose for its existence, it should be changed or repealed."
To me it still doesn't solve a thing....
Posted: 2004/12/24 10:07 Updated: 2004/12/24 10:07
r_a_trip
Discoverer
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 26
I guess you're a non-coder. Guess what, I'm a coder, and it makes a huge difference to me if I get the source or not.James' proposal would give you the right to create your own non-distributable and non-compatible version of proprietary software for inhouse use. That is the problem with embedding freedom zero and freedom one in copyright law. The benefits of having source code is limited if the rights to use is limited to a single person. You won't have the advantage of scale that a software community brings with it. The new copyright regime (let's call it Edict of James ;)), in the outlines given, will still give those that want to do so the right to exclude individuals from sharing and improving. Under the Edict of James, the minor benefits to coders will be that they have the priviledge to become unpaid bugfixers and software engineers to proprietary companies. What else is going to be done with a fix or an enhancement if not incorporate it in the mother code? Rest assured that a proprietary company will put provisions in the EULA that state that any modification you make, will either become their sole property or they are automatically licensed in perpetuity to use it in their software free of charge. Your only option will be to hide your modified codebase if you want to be the only one benefiting from your fix or enhancement. If you submit it to the parent company, they will say thank you and charge you for your own code with the next upgrade. In the advent of thinking you would benefit from being able to integrate your products better, this might be true. If you want to do this proprietary, let's hope big company X doesn't want to enter your market niche. Your code is as exposed as theirs, so they can pour over your secret sauce, write a clean room implementation based upon the spec of your code and push you out of the market even faster than before. The non-coder end-user can hire me instead of waiting for the creator to fix a bug.If the EULA doesn't forbid it, because you could interpret private derivation as the act of modification by the licensee alone. In which case you as a third party coder are not allowed to touch my licensed code. But even if you can fix my bug for me, I will end up with a codebase that is out of sync with the mother code and possibly incompatible. In that case I've payed to make my code static and unupgradable with advances in the mother code. Even if I could theoretically send the bugfix to the mother company (if you do not restrict me to do so with your code) I will be paying twice for code that was supposed to be working in the first place. The proposed fixes force proprietary software to be more like FOSS, not the other way around.Well, this is flawed. Because FOSS does not exist without freedoms two and three. What James proposes is to make Microsofts Shared Source model the default legal one. Guess what, Shared Source is proprietary, restrictive and doesn't give licensees all that much benefit. Rights two and three of the Free Software ideology are so important, because it gives the end-user the option to take the code and go somewhere else if you as a vendor decides to screw them over. There is no possibility of vendor lockin. With rights two and three embedded in the license, one can only become top dog as a vendor if your company is 100% customer oriented. Rights two and three of the Free Software ideology are so important, because it gives the coders the opportunity to build upon each others ideas and work. The synergies of sharing and reusing code create an environment that can outstrip a proprietary megacorp multiple times over. The Edict of James does not fix anything. It has a notion that authors should have the means to get compensation for their code. (Only monetary or also otherwise? It's not exactly clear). Guess what, securing rights for the author is exactly what modern day Copyright does. It gives you the right to decide under which provisions your work is available. The compulsory delivery of sourcecode for private use and modification will not benefit 99% of the worlds population. Yes, I am a non-coder (bar some futile VBA macros) and the majority of the populaton is a non-coder with me. The right of private use of non-shareable source code is pretty meaningless. The Edict of James is a non-solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Authors are completely protected by Copyright law today. The author is the single entity that can decide on the multiplication and distribution of his/her work. As such they can set the condition under which they want to be compensated for their work. The provision of compulsory available source code and right to derivation for private individuals does absolutely nothing to ensure compensation for an author. It doesn't oust copyright infringement. Furthermore, it even doesn't protect an enduser against Draconian licensing. The middle ground James seems to be seeking is something like the Java Community Process. Open, but not open enough. Code is either Free or it is not. Have you heard of a woman that is a little bit pregnant? Maybe you should have a better look at other things James wrote - including his open source projects.If we have to weigh all other unrelated factors to stymie criticism on one piece, the world would become infinately more interesting. It's a good thing I submitted a piece here that can be amply and rightly criticized without the burdon of my good deeds on it.  Ok, well, I know I can be a harsh, dark minded and pessimistic bastard. So for the sake of preserving the baby and getting rid of the bathwater I'll take this proposal as being contemplated with the best intentions possible. Even when looking at it after putting on my "nice cap" it still doesn't fundamentally change anything from todays situation. As long as Software Houses can get away with anti-consumer EULA's, the delivery of heavily restricted source code with a proprietary app will not be a significant improvement.
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/24 10:21 Updated: 2004/12/24 10:21
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
Quote:
libervisco wrote:
You think that it is enough to "fight" this fight by forming a hybrid between FOSS and proprietary software (reformed copyright system) and i think that nothing is enough but the complete fight for the complete and already existing ideology: free software movement.
No, I don't think that's enough. I want ALL proprietary software, where possible, to be replaced by FOSS. The software that cannot be FOSS has to become hybrid. I'm as radical as you are, but I won't demand the impossible.
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/24 16:25 Updated: 2004/12/24 16:25
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Quote: I-am-PK wrote:
No, I don't think that's enough. I want ALL proprietary software, where possible, to be replaced by FOSS. The software that cannot be FOSS has to become hybrid.
I'm as radical as you are, but I won't demand the impossible. Then i am in agreement with you (no matter that we may want the same out of a bit different ideological reasons). The only remaining difference between us in regard to this is that i'm a bit more optimistic and believe that such thing as "impossible" doesn't exists and that therefore, sooner or later, there will be a FOSS replacement for ALL proprietary software. But arguing about that is pointless i believe, because this is something time will show along the way and then we'll see who's been right.  Merry xmas! Daniel
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/25 6:07 Updated: 2004/12/25 6:17
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
Merry christmas to you too!
Well, the ideology is almost identical, the methods are different. I prefer to make my ideals reality by very small steps, instead of making one big step that might easily fail completely. Also, I prefer to make the "dark side" slightly brighter instead of simply stating it is dark and our enemy. I mean, I think creators of proprietary software are wrong, except perhaps in some obscure cases. Still, I will try to cooperate with them instead of competing (!!!) with them like free software purists do. From my point of view the worst is no software, then comes completely proprietary software, then "half open" source, and the best is completely open. It seems (to me) the purists would rather have no software than half-open software.
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/25 21:30 Updated: 2004/12/25 21:30
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Quote: I-am-PK wrote:
It seems (to me) the purists would rather have no software than half-open software. Well, that may indeed be true, but there is a good reason for that if you are putting freedom as the NO 1 priority where it is indeed better to have no software than to have software and be "slave" to it's "owner". This is the way "purists" are seeing it. It's a funny thing.. Even if i dislike open source movement because of some disagreements, some compromises they are willing to take, i am willing to admit and aknowledge that open source did a good job in widespreading free software use. They are showing the action and benefits and then let free software movement do the "ideological" conviencing job, converting to believer This is how one can "neutrally" look at things. However, even though maybe the better approach to convert someone is to first show pragmacy and then the ideological backings of it, it is EXTREMELY important for the free software movement to educate and influence people that it is and always was all about freedom, not primarily about all these nice benefits you see, but your freedom. This is a role free software movement has to play. If there was no open source movement coming in 1998, free software movement should in some way play the role that open source is playing now, showing the action and then talking freedom. I am not sure that it would happen that way.. That is why i call it funny.. it's like the history is playing with us and by the way being pretty kind to FOSS. Open source is there to "marketeer" the free software to the capitalist world that understands only that "marketing" saving up free software movement in the back to teach the newcomers of what it is actually all about.. You see? When you think about this, pretty neutrally actually, it is pretty good.. Thanks Daniel
Re: I don't get it
Posted: 2004/12/26 6:17 Updated: 2004/12/26 6:17
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
Well, if the open source movement would not exist and the free software movement would do it's "work", then there would probably be two submovements in the free software movement: a pragmatic and a purist one. Actually I see open source and free software as one movement.
Edict of James bright for the CSS industry
Posted: 2004/12/27 10:05 Updated: 2004/12/27 10:05
r_a_trip
Discoverer
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 26
Also, I prefer to make the "dark side" slightly brighter instead of simply stating it is dark and our enemy. I mean, I think creators of proprietary software are wrong, except perhaps in some obscure cases.
Let the Master of Dark Thoughts paint you a horrible picture. What if we can get the "Edict of James" accepted as the new copyright regime? Would that make the "dark" a little "brigther"? If we assume that every CSS corporation is honorable, then yes.
If every piece of software came with the code, I envision a litigation frag fest of the CSS industry against the FOSS industry. Think of the possibilities...
CSS company X: "FOSS company Y has looked at our source code and illegally appropriated our key technology in their FOSS project".
FOSS company Y: "We did nothing of the kind!"
CSS company X: "Prove it."
FOSS company Y: "We can't! We don't have the monetary means to withstand your litigation."
CSS company X: "That settles it then. Remove your project from the face of the earth. If not, we will sue your behind to Mars and back."
See why I don't see any benefit in the "Edict of James"?
(CSS = Closed Source Software. Explanation just in case.)
Re: Edict of James bright for the CSS industry
Posted: 2004/12/27 10:59 Updated: 2004/12/27 11:00
jamesthompson
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 211
I'm vacationing here in Florida for Christmas so I haven't been able to see everything that has been written, but I'll try to get through it. I do find it mildly amusing that the "Edict of James" is now being thrown around.
To address the above scenario though, this assumes a number of things.
+ No presumption of innocence - The burden of proof is and should always be on the accuser, not the accused, that is how a fair legal system works.
+ That the FOSS company is unsuccessful - Boy you don't seem to have much hope for the future of FOSS as a viable business model.
+Copyright protects entire works - There would need to be test cases to iron out how fair use shoud apply to software code when it is available just like other copyrightable works.
Like I said, I will hopefully go back through all the posts and make necessary responses and clarifications. I hope everyone had a very blessed Christmas.
Re: Edict of James bright for the CSS industry
Posted: 2004/12/27 13:38 Updated: 2004/12/27 13:38
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
I would like to add some things to what James just said... Quote:
CSS company X: "FOSS company Y has looked at our source code and illegally appropriated our key technology in their FOSS project".
Looking is not forbidden. A copyright is not a patent. There might be a problem if a CSS company copies FOSS code into their project and then tries to sue the creator of the FOSS code. If you make sure you can always prove you had that code first (by publishing it to many others) it shouldn't be a problem. Last, if what you think will happen really happens, that shows the justice system is broken, not that the edict of James is bad. Do you really think we should not improve something because something else is broken? Of course we should fix the other thing first....
Re: Edict of James bright for the CSS industry
Posted: 2004/12/28 21:12 Updated: 2004/12/28 21:12
Libervisco
Libervis Team Admin
Joined: 2004/7/12
From: Croatia
Posts: 2825
Eh.. i simply don't see the "edict of James" as a solution. Not to go about ranting about it again, it simply has too much flaws. The r_a_trip has a good points there, the dark side would hardly become much significantly brighter.
Thus i still think supporting free software in any way possible is the best way to go.
Thx
Dan
Re: Edict of James bright for the CSS industry
Posted: 2004/12/29 5:57 Updated: 2004/12/29 5:57
tbuitenh
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/8/23
From: Netherlands
Posts: 1175
And I simply don't see how doing one thing stops us from doing the other too.
*sigh*
A FOSS sports metaphor
Posted: 2004/12/31 6:35 Updated: 2004/12/31 6:35
redcone
Libervisionary
Joined: 2004/12/11
From:
Posts: 61
Traditional market mechanisms have not proven effective for FOSS (or any copyrighted work) because there is essentially a zero cost, for anyone with access to the work, to copy and redistribute it. There is also no effective mechanism to determine who has a copy and how much they use it. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a copyright owner to control his/her work or to enjoy the "temporary monopoly" granted them by the constitution.
However many FOSS creators do end up being well compensated for their work by other means. I use sports as a metaphor. Many people play sports in high school and college. They devote a great deal of time, energy, and effort to training, to practice, and to game play. They get a lot of personal satisfaction and non-monetary benefits from those efforts. Only the best of the best make it through to the professional levels.
There is a professional level for FOSS developers. There are many companies and individuals who are willing and able to pay for proven creative and capable minds.
There is a very pragmatic logic to this. A company can pay a programmer to develop an open source solution, recognizing that their competitors will also have access to that same solution once it is released. The company that paid for the development, though, has built in advantage. They have a head start and in-house experience with the program. They also have a solution that is tailored to their particular needs. For a competitor to be able to adapt it to their needs, they may have to pay for additional work.
In this view, while FOSS stresses cooperation, on a professional level it is very much about competition. The FOSS developers who get paid are the ones who have demonstrated their skills by their previous voluntary efforts. You have to succeed in the amateur leagues to earn the right to play in the professional leagues.
As an example:Gnome and Mono developer Miguel de Icaza is now a highly paid Novell developer.
I am saying I endorse this arrangement. I offer it as an observation on the current state of affairs.
Re: A FOSS sports metaphor
Posted: 2005/1/5 14:16 Updated: 2005/1/5 14:16
jamesthompson
Libervis Team Mod
Joined: 2004/12/7
From:
Posts: 211
What about the indy developer who still needs to support his family but is no less talented than the "star name" developer? What if their project fits a niche that a power player like Novell, IBM or others wouldn't be willing to fund? Shouldn't that smaller developer be able to make a living off his work if others deem it of value? FOSS works great at the large scale economics of big players just like Closed Source does. But what about the smaller markets where work still has value but where the economics can suffer from excessive free-loaders. In the current state Novell, IBM and others can suffer individual free-loaders who take but don't give back whereas smaller outfits can't handle the pressure that unchecked and unstoppable redistribution rights allow in the FOSS model. The point is, FOSS is a great thing and we should all support and contribute to it, but we need to respect those who don't accept FOSS and be willing to do the right thing which is to not copy and redistribute if we don't have permission. Just cause you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.
|
|
