Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1252 gnu.misc.discuss:683 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zds-ux!gerry From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of life, as it relates to hacking. Message-ID: <72@zds-ux.UUCP> Date: 28 Dec 89 22:13:11 GMT References: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> <4823@sugar.hackercorp.com> Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) Followup-To: alt.religion.computers Organization: Zenith Data Systems Lines: 138 iain the flippant writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> > nope. i'd be just peachy keen if they sold the software for $50 or >> > $5... i don't *want* the source to . >> OK, you're a new variety. You defend the FSF without believing in the same >> things they do. RMS is more interested in making the source available than >> how much you charge for the binaries. Under the GPL you can sell a binary >> for anything you can get for it so long as you give the source away. No, he is not a new variety. I and I'm sure many others that defend RMS and his motives wrt GNU, the GPL and FSF are in substantial agreement with Jon here. >well, i respect rms for what he thinks...however, his opinions and >mine vary on some subjects. i think that having the source available >keeps people from charging outrageous prices, something i'd like to >see become the norm. i think that rms' opinion is that it doesn't >matter how much you charge for the binaries, because anyone who wants >to will be able to get the source for *free*. of course, as both you >and i have pointed out, people *do* feel that creators should be >compensated - so, why don't they do it? Actually, the real question here is not whether the creators of intellectual property *should* be compensated, but how. The way copyright and publishing of anything works ends up favoring publishing companies, not the authors of the works. However, rather than spending more time justifying this claim I will spend some on sugesting alternatives. In keeping with the idea that net bandwidth is better used to exchange/promote/develop ideas than to flame back and forth, I suggest that each of us consider what we are adding to the conversation before posting. If you like the system the way it is, then be all means keep using it, but if you think as I do that these systems are not very effective at realizing human creative potential, then let's see what we can stir up here. The way I see it, much duplication of effort is created because companies often seek to differentiate their products so that when or if they get a significant market share, their product is now locked by virtue of its non-standard features or protocals (features touted as "better" by marketeers, but often just different). In the final analysis, this approach is probably counterproductive because the company may end up with a bigger slice of a smaller pie (i.e. the market doesn't grow as much because of fragmentation). These alternatives to present practices with respect to copyright and the reward of authors of creative works are not necessarily new, but they are not typically available for most of us, and may have other problems as well. For example, universities and research institutions pay people saleries to publish works for the public domain. This practice could be expanded by public and/or private funds. Note that FSF does this (or tries to if they can get any money) to develop GNU code. I claim that it would be considerable less expensive to develop a national library of computer tools (OS's, GUI's, compilers, interpreters, CASE tools, etc.). Actually it would probably be more than less expensive, spending money this way would probably create more wealth than it consumed (as is claimed for NASA's Apollo program). If this alternative does seem a little like socialism, you can cosider how to decide which contribution is more important than another and reward that author with some type of bonus. The way I see it, private software companies (often small enough to avoid bureaucratic stupidity) often are not all that good at making the rewards commencerate with the contribution, so why shouldn't rewards be arbitrary. Maybe you could set up contests that awarded additional prizes to the best works. The best could be chosen by the votes of users of the works with correcting factors to allow for differing sizes of user populations (so a very good program essential to a narrow application is not automatically lower rated than something as widely used a a word processor). I contend that programmers like artists of all types are motivated more by the work itself than by money, so any system of bonuses would be less important than the type of work available. Also some of the dynamics of research communities would necessarily develop, i.e. people would take on projects for recognition value, looking to land future work on the important project of their choice. I didn't say, but I implied that the major finacier of this scheme would be the federal government, but this doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps a better source would be industry consortiums (ala OSF, although I consider their aim to be fragmentation rather than unifying the industry). I immagine a non-profit company whose goal is to establish and then expand a national digital network for the publishing of any type of digital material. The costs of distribution of information would be seperated from the copyright or royalty costs (note that it is not possible to say scan a book into a computer, and pay the author an appropriate royalty because it is the publisher(distributer) who controls the copyright). FSF does this by eliminating royalties, and allowing charges for distribution, thus making exclusive ownership impossible. Actually the network isn't necessary, but by establishing one and standard simple proceedures for an author to register a work and fix royalties, this might become a standard low cost (in time and money) way of publishing. Book, record, and computer software stores might be replaced by service companies that can produce a physical copy of any work on the network on the spot. If these services are widespread enough, it will no longer be important to have physical access to a research library in order to conduct research. I will repeat it again in another way. Our present practices in copyright ownership restricts the distribution of intelectual property, and probably makes the dream of open, universal hypertext/media impossible. These practices restrict the free exchange of ideas that has enabled the rapid expansion of knowledge humanity has experienced. Admittedly this expansion is a mixed bag since it has enabled humanity to exploit nature to an extent that could be deadly to our species, but we can't put the genie back, so we had better expand our knowledge fast enough to bring things under control. >> I condemn paragraph 2b of the GPL. As I understand it he's the one >> responsible for that. I find his motives laudable when it comes to >> writing code, but his attempts to use the force of the state to impose his >> morals on others are despicable. >well, i disagree with you there. i think that he's just playing the >game by the rules and using them to his advantage - the same thing >that MicroSoft Corp., Apple Corp., Lotus Corp. IBM Corp., et. all do. >Now, there are people who are in the middle - who want to get the >benefits of rms' (i assume - don't know him that well) good will >without paying the prices that he wants to charge... it can hurt the >middle men who don't want to take a stand - but rms forces us all to >take a stand on something - even if it is the GPL or paragraph 2b..... I have to agree with iain here. The sellers of commercial software are more restrictive than GPL. You may quible that GPL is more restrictive wrt included libraries, but that's not the point. These for-profit companies could legally include this restriction if they felt it was in their interest. They probably don't because nobody will use their libraries if they do, and RMS may find the same to be true of GNUware. People will use GNUware and find another source for a library. Admittedly this undermines RMS' intention to remove duplication of effort, and for this reason I think he should change this, but you still don't have any reason to complain about it being unfair, unethical or whatever. >> Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva >iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | Gerry Gleason