Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: FREE Software, PD and author compensation Message-ID: <12772@cup.portal.com> Date: 21 Dec 88 02:58:34 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 201 In article <5500@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > The supposition is this: people now are compensated for producing >information that other people want, they are not (in general) compensated >for producing information other people don't want. This works well, >information people want tends to get created, and both the person getting >the information and the person selling are happy (or they would not have >entered the transaction - if it costs too much, you don't buy it). 1. I don't see how this negates the point you reply to. It seems more of a non-sequiter. 2. The current system does not in general have people compensating authors for *producing* software - people compensate authors for the *finished product*. The only authors compensated for the act of production are those who are on salary to a company. Even some of those get compensated for the finished product in terms of royalties. Compensating authors for the act of producing software is what is proposed. 3. This seems to imply that under any other system (such as the one I propose), either authors would get compensated for producing unwanted software, or would produce wanted software and be uncompensated. I don't think that's a necessary result of a different system. What I propose still involves free market forces. 4. That's right - if it costs too much, the erstwhile purchaser merely copies it instead. Which gives rise to all the problems there are today with piracy and is why we're having this discussion. The information provider is definitely *not* happy. He knows that for every legitimate transaction, there are ten to twelve illegitimate copies made. Three or four of those are people who would have bought the program had it not been so easy to pirate. Copy protection does not make piracy harder, except for the initial few who 'crack' the protection. Once cracked, the software is as easily copied as unprotected stuff. > But you can certainly leave company X for company Y if you wish. If >you want to work with more than one company, fine, people do it all the >time, and they don't get fired for it if they let people know what's up. >In some cases, they may make it a condition of your employment that you >not work for a competitor: that's fine, it's their perogative, and you >presumably entered into it freely. 5. Sure, I can leave company X for Y. That's not the point. It's not a question of whom I wish to work for. It's a question of what is good for the industry. Information sharing is for the good of the industry. Everyone learns how to do things better, and things become more standardized - which is good for the customers. The only ones to get hurt by information sharing are those who depend upon proprietary information to maintain a competitive edge. For many reasons, that is not the best thing to base a competitive edge upon. 6. People don't do it all the time. It is a condition of every non-disclosure/intellectual property agreement I have seen or heard of that one not do anything that would benefit a competitor. The only exception to this that I have ever seen is the case where an employee is contracted out to another company. In such a case, you may take only your skills with you. No information. The only times I have seen companies working together is organizations like OSF. 7. Entered freely? Nope. There just isn't any alternative. If you want to work in the computer industry, you're going to have to sign a 'we own your brain' agreement, along with a 'keep your mouth shut' agreement. > Except the information may not be produced if X has no incentive >(monetary) to produce it. They won't pay people to compile a big database >if they don't get any competitive advantage to doing so. 8. The competitive advantage that a payer gets over a non-payer is support and documentation. For large (i.e. corporate) products, such things are vital. >So such things won't get created, in general, except in the odd case where >everyone in the industry agrees to work as a unit (unlikely, for the same >reasons: why bother, and also that's usually falls under the anti-trust >laws.) 9. What is OSF? Such things no longer fall under anti-trust laws. What I envision is a kind of gigantic OSF that grows and grows until it encompasses all corporate software from all corporations. Those who do not join are left in the technical dust. Everyone in the GOSF pays everyone else to produce more software, according to their reputations and the perceived value of the final product. Corporate competitive edges would depend on their internal efficiencies and technical prowess rather than proprietary information. It would be how good you are rather than what secrets you know. Software for individuals would of course have to be a little different. > Who sets the price? 10. The company that offers to produce the software sets the price, just like they do today. >Who decides what other companies pay the one that developed it? 11. Each company decides on its own if it wants the benefits that accrue from paying for a support/documentation license. Here's something that might work. Company 1 gets 2 and 3 to each pay for half the development cost. Each gets half the projected licenses. Then 2 sells all of its licenses save what it needs (and can afford) to two more companies. 3 does the same. The process continues until every company that wants a license has one. Those who are willing to do all their own support from the source code and without documentation (the documentation will get copied of course, but that is still illegal (unlike copying the software) and much more expensive than copying the software) are free to do so. They may find it cheaper to buy a license than to provide their own support. I'm not saying this *will* work, only that it *might* work. It is only one of a large number of scenarios I can envision for how the contract fee would get paid. Another is that no money is paid until the product is delivered. Then the producing company simply sells conditional licenses, and finances through the bank like today. The conditional license would have clauses about such things as level of functionality, usability, bugginess, service, and time consumed in development. Purchasers could refuse to pay if any of the items were not met or corrected. Kind of like a lay-away plan for software. Purchasers might be encouraged or required to contribute some percentage in advance (like 10%). It would be very like buying futures on the stock market. >What if the individuals that benefit from it are individuals, and not >companies? 12. The above plan for conditional licenses might apply in this case. >Does this mean that if company A makes some software, and companies B-E >pay company A, and it gets put in the PD, that a new company F can start >up and get the software all their other competitors paid for (except maybe >A) for free? Etc, etc. Absolutely unworkable. 13. Well, I just suggested some ways it *might* work. Of course there are problems with the idea. There are problems with selling software too. Here's what objections might sound like: Why would anyone buy software when they can just make a copy from a friend who has? Very few software licenses will ever get sold - groups of ten or more people will chip in together, buy one copy, get it cracked if protected, and duplicate the manuals. Then the ten who chipped in will give their friends copies for the cost of copying the manual. Pretty soon, companies won't sell more than a few tens of licenses - the rest will be illegal copies. Everyone will do it, so there will be no way to enforce the copyright laws. Companies will do the same thing. >> On the individual user side, users join together into users groups. > >Sounds like a tax to me. Sounds almost like a second shadow government. 14. The difference is that the individuals have direct leverage on the way the money is spent. In our governmental setup, we choose representatives who can spend our money just about any way they please, provided that they can get themselves re-elected. In my system, individuals would propose programs. Suggestions would be tallied at the national level, and made into a list. Each member would get the list, and mark off percentages for how much of his 'software dues' would go to producing which programs (the names of the potential authors would also be provided). This would again be tallied at the national level, and the money would be apportioned accordingly. Projects not getting enough funds to satisfy the author would have to wait until the required amount accumulated. Projects getting more than enough would have the extra returned to the members, again apportioned according to the way they voted. Again, this is not the only possible way, just *a* possible way. The key concept is that software is commisioned rather than bought, and the final product is PD. > Artists are jealous of their copyrights too. 15. Yes, of course they are. That is beside the point I was making. I do realize that authors would have to be found willing to work this way. Some are. They work today for companies like Microsoft, Lotus, Borland, and so on. These people get salaries. Some get royalties, but I would guess that most do not. Authors getting royalties have their names on their programs. The point I was making was that under my system, the amount that authors could demand for their services would be directly proportional for their reputation as programmers. This is indeed similar to the way that commisioned art works. > There's one HELL of a lot less money to be made in hobby clubs. 16. Like I said, it's one possible way that commisioned software could work. Not the only way. Another possibility is of course buying software futures. One thing that software futures might lead to is wider distribution of beta-test versions to futures buyers. This would get kinks out of the software perhaps more effectively than the current method. >And you could set up your system today, if you wish. Try it and then tell >us how it does. 17. Would like to try it, at least on a small scale. I personally am not allowed to sell my services as a programmer. My corporation forbids it. However, I am interested in hearing (via private netmail) from authors who would be willing to work on a contract basis, and from purchasers who would like to buy futures. I would also be interested in hearing of small projects that those purchasers would like to see happen. I'll collect the responses and see if I can't get something going. If you're a software author who's tried the shareware route and found it dissapointing, I'd like to hear from you. If you're a user who'd like to see some neat little utility that nobody's ever thought of, I'd like to hear from you too. Dan Hankins