support requirement

[Dj]

VAB wrote:

> Yes.  I see your reading in the text, however I wanted to make
> it clear that I did not mean it as a threat.

I accept that...

> It was
> the method by which all free *nix (Linux,*BSD,Minix) came
> into existence.

Well, lesser strength licenses; only one of those is GPL'd though.
And that's possibly part of the progression of licenses, as each
license advocate reimplements each time. Now we're in wasted
effort territory.


> Commercial
> companies re-implement eachother's applications all the time. IE and
> Netscape for example.

Generic applications are an interesting case in that you can't really call
IE or Netscape "reimplementations" of each other. They are implementations
of a browser though.


> Yes. I believe it is ethical.  I think of computer programing in the
> same manner as you probably think of mathematics.

I don't see computer program *design* as similar to mathematics. For
one, we'd have obvious intuitive rules which always worked to base
development on. Coomputer program deign and implementation is a science
and an art, engineering and craft all at once.

>  Should you have to pay a royalty every time you add 2 + 2?

I wasn't asking about royalties. I was asking about the ethics. The example
postulates you have been given something with some conditions.


> Would you expect 12+ year
> protection on something as simple as a x-or type operation or other
> simple algorithm?

Simple algorithms are not the issue. Complex algorithms and techniques, which
pass obviousness tests and prior art tests are more likely to accrete patent
protection in a more functional patent system which didn't rubber stamp stuff
through and let the courts fight it out (which is the current problem for software).



> > And there's no copyright on good ideas? So where's the benefit on being open
> > with your good ideas?
> Your ideas can be expanded, implemented and improved by the community.

Hoorah for the BSD license which allows for credit where credit is due then. B)

> You benefit because technology advances and because of your contribution
> to the community.

But if you've lost your ability to exploit your original ideas because the community

has gone and reimplemented your ideas and disconnected you from the process, then
as I said, where's the benefit in being open?

>  This positive feedback loop is why
> proprietary software is being defeated.

Oh sorry missed that. Yes, of course, there is no software industry is there.

> It's a function of scale - with a closed
> idea you have say 12 employees functioning as a positive feedback loop
> for it - 12 good people.

If you have 12 people working on something, your team is too big. B)

>  But if you release your idea, you have a much
> larger number of people forming that positive feedback loop that it's
> developed in.

But now you are unable to exploit your idea. Or at least exploit the idea's
implementation as you've given it away.


> If you keep a good idea a secret it is of no value to anyone but
> yourself.

And the people who want to buy that good idea off yourself, or buy
products based on that good idea.


> Closed systems cannot compete with open systems in open (capitalist)
> markets.

Hang on... capitalism, which brought us patents to allow ideas to be spread
whilst allowing the originator of the idea time and protection to exploit the
idea. Except that you've removed that idea of protection so what you have
is an accelerated market with no idea capital.


> > Due to it's license contamination capabilities.
> This is it's mechanism of preserving and guaranteeing freedom.

And "expanding freedom"?

>  The
> GPL's viral clause is one of the reasons the license is so well liked
> by the Free Software Community.

And so disliked by many people I know who prefer open source licenses
which don't trigger off chain reactions. I'm sold on the peer review concept
of open source, but I'm of the school that considers that you should also
be free to fork to closed code. If the open model works, you won't want to
but it's a freedom I'm not prepared to give up.

> As I
> suggested previously, it could be released under a more restrictive
> license with out loss of benefits to the company seeking to opensource
> it. If there was a demand for such an application in the opensource

> community, the community would develop such an application.

Or the community could enter into a reasonable discussion on how the
license could be changed to ensure their contribution, possibly with a review.

In fact, that is something sorely missing; some hard data on how well
proprietary projects open up to the open source model and to see if there
are any benefits/detrimentals.

Actually, is anyone collating that kind of data? Is anyone reviewing how things
are working for the vendors who have opened up?

Dj