[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Clark" == "Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans.com> writes:

    Clark> Not that you have to believe in RMS's vision

    sjt> But I do believe in RMS's vision of a free-software-only world.

    Clark> I don't.  I firmly believe that copyright and patent are
    Clark> fundamentally good ideas (trademark is the best of the
    Clark> three).

Believing in a free-software-only world doesn't mean I think
intellectual property is wrong.  It means that I would like to strive
for a world in which the instruments are not used much, if at all.  At
least for software.  See below.

    Clark> Unfortunately, over the last century, our government has
    Clark> taken a good thing and turned the dial all the way up.
    Clark> Just like Food is good... too much food and you get FAT.
    Clark> Everything in moderation.

Well, IMO (not carefully researched), GNU shows that even permanent
_copyright_ in software would be no big deal.  Something I've
considered somewhat more carefully is the issue of patent; as far as I
can tell _in software_ patent is just a big gun that capital can hold
at the heads of authors.  But even for large software projects it is
rarely necessary to assemble a lot of capital all at once.  Therefore
I oppose patenting software in principle.

I don't mind rewarding very smart people such as RSA or Karmarkar, who
find ways to implement specifications that others cannot, even with a
blackbox demonstration that it can be done.  However they are extremely
rare.  Mostly patent is used to protect monopolies and oligopolies,
and serves the interest of Corporate Legal, not Corporate R&D, let
alone those who work on the software directly.

    Clark> what I do find fault is that the laws are currently so out
    Clark> of ballence that they have lost all legitimacy.

I agree that it's a question of balance.

But I think that (_in software_), compared to the cost of reinventing
most patents, the transaction cost of negotiating a license and paying
the royalty is absurdly high, enough so that setting the "novelty and
inventiveness" bar at infinity is a reasonable approximation.  (I used
to think otherwise, but I've changed my mind over time---I might
change it again. :-)

    Clark> GNU software has yet to be seriously challenged and when it
    Clark> is only the copyright holder can enforce challenges.
    Clark> Currently there is much GPL software out there that is not
    Clark> owned by anyone (just try and find the owner for some

I have.  It hasn't been hard---but I have had no luck with getting
assignments.  Evidently authors often aren't interested in enforcing;
they're just stuck with the license because the work is derivative.

    Clark> peices) and as such, enforcing it will be damn near
    Clark> impossible.

For those who believe in free software and wish to use their works to
encourage more free software to be written, the GPL is the odds-on
candidate for the best tool.  Such people should, as you point out,
either carefully consider the consequences of having to defend their
rights themselves or assign to the FSF.

But many of us don't really care to enforce copyleft.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py