Compulsory checkin clauses.

[Ross N. Williams]

At 10:26 AM -0700 5/8/2000, David Johnson wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Aug 2000, Ross N. Williams wrote:
> > >Again, it is still a private modification. Even though B is not helped
> > >by it, neither is it harmed. Trying to "equalize" the benefits amongst
> > >all the users sounds too much like social engineering, and I don't
> > >think that's the proper role of a license. Requiring that a developer
> > >labor unpaid for his competitor is grossly unfair.
> > 
> > Which is exactly what happens when we modify free software for a client!
> > Why do you want to protect software developers in non-software industries
> > from such unfairness, but not software developers in the software industry?
>
>There is a big difference here. In the case of modifying a free
>software client, the developer is getting paid. By the client. They
>have to follow your rules because they are distributing and publishing
>your software. They are profiting from your software. If they kept the
>modifications for private internal use they are not profiting only
>benefiting (a small but crucial distinction).

Not "your" rules because consultant didn't write the software and
didn't ask for it to be GNU. Anyway, let's drop this one.


> > If isometric software battles between software vendors are undesirable,
> > then what makes isometric software battles within other industries
> > any less undesirable? If such battles are all desirable, why don't we all
> > just go back to proprietary licences? :-)
>
>People use open source and free licenses because they want to share
>their creations with others.
>
>Some people may want others to share their original works as well, but
>they aren't using software licensing to do it. Including the FSF. The
>primary goal of the GPL and other copyleft licenses is to ensure that a
>*specific* work is always free. It says absolutely nothing about other
>works that are not in some way derivative. Although Richard Stallman
>may fervently believe that all software must be free, he did not write
>the GPL to accomplish it, preferring didactic and evangelical means
>to accomplish that goal.

I don't see your point here, but let's drop it.


>Once you go beyond your normal rights as a copyright holder, such
>as regulating the distribution of your works, you encroach upon the 
>rights of the user. Although many proprietary licensing schemes do this,
>I am aware of no open source license that does.

Well, seeing as this list controls the definition of "open source",
I'm not surprised ;-)


>And requiring that the company release its private modifications may
>actually be a zero gain for society. If the release denies them the
>means to earn sufficient profit for that $100K, they won't make the
>modifications to begin with.

I thought this was one of the arguments that the FSF is continually
bashing about free software. People always say that it won't get
written and then it does.


> > >If this software is for their own private use, then
> > >spending $100K to improve it is no different than spending $100K to
> > >improve their facilities or buy new equipment or whatever.
> > 
> > Yes, but with software, once it's created, there exists the opportunity
> > to benefit others at a near-zero marginal cost. It doesn't work that
> > way when you buy a table, otherwise we'd have open-source furniture
> > wouldn't we?
>
>A fallacious argument. Even if there is a near-zero cost to
>distributing the modifications, there is a definite cost for
>releasing it. One example is support. Someone will have to pay for
>supporting this new nonstandard version of the software. If they do not
>offer support they may lose sales of their other products simply due to
>angry customers. And if the software causes damages to the user
>somehow, then the company may have to pay the costs of a court battle.

I don't accept this. Free software licences have lots of legal firewalls
to protect authors and no one says that anyone who posts compulsory
checkins has to support them or even answer any subsequent email.


>Making people be altruistic is always a tricky affair.

The GPL makes people altruistic by forcing them to share their
modifications *if they publish them*. And it works!



>I don't know of
>too many situations where it has worked successfully. Philosophically,
>I feel there is a greater moral gain if one out of ten people
>voluntarily choose to share than if ten out of ten people are forced to
>share.

Yeah, but do we want to be morally or economically enriched :-) :-)



>But regardless of your philosophy or mine, is a software license the
>appropriate vehicle for promoting them?

Hell yeah! Rock 'N Roll!

(Geez, haven't you read the GPL preamble! :-) :-)


> > >Basically, the reason I am against restricting private modifications is
> > >because it is really restricting *usage*. It's like selling a book but
> > >telling the reader that they can't make any margin notes unless they
> > >publish them, or selling sheet music but forbidding improvising on it
> > >unless it is recorded and uploaded to mp3.com.
> > 
> > Yes, I think that a sound argument can be made on the basis of freedom.
>
>According to the FSF, that's the whole point of the thing.

Yeah, I know. Spooky huh?


Ross.

Dr Ross N. Williams (ross at rocksoft.com), +61 8 8232-6262 (fax-6264).
Director, Rocksoft Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia: http://www.rocksoft.com/ 
Protect your files with Veracity data integrity: http://www.veracity.com/