Slashdot Mirror

From here:

In an emerging market, where prior investment is negligible, consumers desire highly differentiated software offerings; our legal environment supports this need exquisitely. However, in established markets, where consumers have invested in and have become dependent upon a particular software, these same consumers no longer desire competition for new and different software offerings. Instead, if given a choice, they would prefer competition for the change in the software they currently use. Unfortunately, our current legal practices, focused on emerging markets and justified with natural-right copyright thinking, deny the marketplace this alternative style of competition.

I do think that a contractual system is possible to establish such a competitive market for software upgrades, could prove more effective than a breakup. This proposal necessitates the creation of a non-profit registry-of-deeds tasked with maintaining records of software produced by revisions from competing authors. Specifically, the registry would administer access to source code and would calculate royalties from the licensing of administered software. The proposal rests on the following principles:

1. Before offering software to the marketplace, a developer would deposit into the registry all source code, description of patents, and design materials necessary to understand and build the program offered.

2. As part of each deposit, the developer would also specify a per-end-user licensing fee for programs derived from the material deposited.

3. Anyone can then retrieve these deposits and build from the material contained provided that any derived or competing work which the reader is thereafter involved is registered according to this same method.

4. When a derivative program is licensed, the sale price is calculated with the licensing fees for the materials upon which the program is derived. A technique involving anonymous serial numbers can be employed so that a given deposit is only licensed and charged once per user.

5. The developer may at any time reduce the posted price for their deposits; but may not license use of the material separately for amounts less than the posted price.

6. When fees are collected, royalties are distributed to each developer according to the number of licenses issued for each of their deposits.

7. The license for each deposit does not extend to trademarks, intellectual property of other parties, or material that was deposited separately. Deposits which would overlap in material must be decomposed into smaller units; the original treated as a derived work.

While the above may seem complicated, it will administer software that is a composite of revisions from competing authors. I am positive that most of this process can be automated so that developers, customers, and distributors are shielded from the administrative burden.

I believe that this mechanism could bring about more professionalism within the industry. It would eliminate bait-and-upgrade schemes. It would also improve software reliability. Lacking serious competition for upgrades, established software vendors have little incentive to work on quality control issues. Furthermore, with source code and design documents publicly available, retired programmers could be independently contracted for the evaluation of commercial applications. I can even imagine professional review organizations emerging, helping the consumer sort through the hype to identify those products with good, solid engineering.

I'd like to see some discussion on open-source models that give the user freedom to choose their upgrade (libre) and gives programmers the right to fork, all while not requiring software to be free of charge (gratis). For more thoughts, see Distributed Copyright.

Free Code (aka Libre) doesn't necessarly have to be Free of Charge (aka Gratis). Unfortunately, Open Source (as well as GPL) tie Gratis into the equation. This is sad since it really limits the possibilities.

You can have Libre while charging users for use of your code. The cost for this is a not for profit central administrative authority (registry of deeds). I've written about this at Distributed Copyright an in particular; I wrote up a refined version of the idea in a letter to Judge Jackon. If you think central adminstration is bad... this is what the copyright office is. So, it's possible. Just a bit of will power and some start-up funding. The organization could have a very strict charter (so it's scope can't creep) and could be given the right to impose a small surcharge on sales to break even.

Thus, if the SourceForge fellas wanted to move forward to make money, that's great. However, they don't necessarly have to become "proprietary". Too bad it's always seen as a white/black proposal.

Clark

c/written/delivered/
Clark Evans
http://distributedcopyright.org

What do you think of Distributed Copyright? Especially the suggested remedy sent to Judge Jackson? Thank you! Clark Evans

What do you think of Distributed Copyright? Especially the suggested remedy sent to Judge Jackson? Thank you! Clark Evans

Neat, revolutionary stuff. Hopefully something comes of them.

Hello all. I've been struggling with licensing for 2 years now, especially with one for http://jos.org , I've written up a possible alternative. It is at http://distributedcopyright.org. It seems to have the best aspects of open-source, yet allowing a return on investment for a developer. I'd love to hear your feedback, please join the discussion list! Thank you! Clark Evans