Compulsory checkin clauses.

[David Johnson]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2000, Ross N. Williams wrote:

> >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 ;-)

The list has nothing to do with the definition of open source, although
a few members might have that power. I, for one, have absolutely
nothing to do with it.

> >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.

Creating modifications as a product is a very different thing than
creating modifications for internal use. In the case of the former, the
intention from the very beginning is to release it.

Let me concoct a hypothetical example. Let's say a company is in the
midst of designing a new CPU. They have two pieces of Open Source
software which they have acquired. One is a compiler and the other is
a CAD program. It will be in their best interest to release the
compiler modified for use with their new CPU. It will generate a body
of software available for their product. But if they have modified the
CAD to work with their radically new manufacturing process, releasing
it will either A) be of use to no one else, or B) reveal their trade
secrets to their competitors.

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

Yes, if they publish them. Authors have the right to control the
publication of their work or its derivative. But they don't normally
have the right to compell that publication.

> >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! :-) :-)

Yes, I have read it :-) :-) :-)

It's obvious that Mr. Stallman and I disagree on the appropriateness of
legal licenses as a forum for promulgating philosophy. It's sort of his
version of a charity kitchen. You want the free meal but you have to
listen to the sermon before you get it.

But the preamble is not the legal license! The FSF may very well
desire that everyone release their original works as Free Software, but
they aren't using their licenses to make anyone do it.

But to be constructive for a change, I have a possible solution for
you. How about defining distribution as what happens between two
individual human beings? If coworker A gives a copy of the modification
to coworker B, then the modification has been distributed. This may not
be legally sound, as corporations are considered legal persons, but it
would be an elegant solution if you can still tolerate individuals
creating private modifications.

-- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>