The word that is "Proprietary"

[Tom Hull]

W. Yip wrote:
> 
> At the risk of nit-picking:
> 
> I wish to make a probably novel suggestion that the Open Source Community
> replace the word 'proprietary' with the word 'commodity' in our literature.

For the same of argument, let's call 'the software formerly known as
proprietary' PP, and its opposite !PP, then explore this:

Is 'commodity' a good term? My copy of the Random House Dictionary (2nd ed.)
defines commodity as:

 1. an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished
    from a service.
 2. something of use, advantage, or value.
 3. Stock exchange: any unprocessed or partially processed good, as
    grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals.

Working backwards, #3 is not immediately applicable.

#2 is not a distinguishing characteristic between PP and !PP (certainly
not in a way that favors PP).

#1 is unclear. One theory is that when !PP is sold, what is really
being sold is a service, not the software itself. However, when PP
is sold, it is usually just a restrictive right-to-use license, not
the software itself, either. Nor is it mandatory that any service
be provided when !PP is sold.

However, I don't think these definitions are complete. When I think
of "commodity", the meaning that comes to mind is something that is
simple, abundant, interchangeable, and not monopolized. Commodities
are goods that are _only_ subject to the law of supply and demand.
Even if you leave out the non-monopoly attribute, I don't see how
you can use this definition to distinguish PP from !PP.

As for the word 'proprietary', it's hard to think of a better term.
PP can only be based on proprietary rights; !PP may technically be
someone's property, but that someone has chosen to forego various
options that only property holders have, and as such may be viewed
as significantly less proprietary than PP.

> The word 'proprietary' is often used in context of with those software
> released under restrictive licenses (eg. M$).
> 
> The are certain problems with the word 'proprietary'. Firstly, and
> fundamentally, it is legally a misnomer because open source software is
> copyright, and copyright itself is a form of proprietary interest.
> Secondly, by clustering M$ and all other selfish, anti-social companies
> together under the word 'proprietary', we seem to be giving  the false
> impression open source is 'non-proprietary', that is to say, the software
> programmer does not own that which he releases under open source licenses.
> (when actually he does) IOW, the word 'proprietary' does carry a fair bit
> of bad baggage. I think it can dissuade a newbie as much as the word 'free'
> can.
> 
> As to the word 'commodity', it is underpinned by much legal literature,
> particularly the Chicago School of Economic theory, which is famous for
> reducing copyright to the level of a commodity. There is much academic
> debate on how intellectual property extends *beyond* mere profit motives
> and being a static, rigid commodity to be exchanged and owned. Goldstein's
> "Copyright's Highway" is such a book. <Insert arguments on how publishing
> source code can faciliate innovation of computer science here>. It follows
> that the word 'commodity' is far more effective in illustrating the
> anti-social, materialistic and one-sided nature of what we now call
> 'proprietary software'.
> 
> Since the Open Source model recognisably occupies that middle ground
> between pure computer science and commodity software, I think it more
> appropriate to label companies like M$ as 'commodity software' instead of
> 'proprietary software'.
> 
> I hope you understand this, and would love to hear your reactions.
> 
> Cheers

-- 
/*
 * Tom Hull -- thull at sco.com * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
 */