Open Source And The Obligation To Recycle

Lisa writes "Tim O'Reilly has a piece called "Open Source and the Obligation to Recycle" in his weblog, where he urges every company whose products are "obsolete" to consider making them available under an open source license, or putting them in the public domain, thereby enriching the soil of our collective commons. (Interestingly, the first posting on the weblog disagrees, saying "...Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else.)""

Comments

Silly counter-argument

[kitts]

Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else.

I'm probably taking this out of context, but this is a silly thing to say:

1. Corporate failures are not directly tied to bad software.

2. You can still learn something from the source code of bad software, even if it's only what not to do.

Re:Silly counter-argument

[zeda]

MS didn't give IE away they just made it part of the windows tax.

Re:Silly counter-argument

[weinerdog]

Even if we were to accept Glass's argument about free software threatening for-profit business is true, one ought to question the assumption that this is a bad thing.

It seems to me that people giving away something in a not-for-profit or community-oriented manner (as opposed to dumping in order to gain a for-profit advantage in the market, which is a different matter altogether) is always a good thing. The argument that it is bad because it hurts for-profit businesses trying to sell the same thing is based on the twisted notion that making money, and not satisfying human need, is the pre-emminent goal. Or perhaps it is the business model in which business speculates on potential demand rather than contracting to produce for existing demand that is the problem.

It can be argued that community or family-based child care puts commercial daycare out of business. It can be argued that community or one-on-one educational activities hurts the business of trade schools that would like to charge money for teaching the same skills. It can be argued that cleaning one's own house and cooking one's own meals depresses the market for housekeepers and threatens the well-being of restaurants and the frozen food industry, but it would be ludicrous to argue that one should not cook one's own dinners, care for one's grandchildren, or teach one's neighbour how to install Windows (well...) because it's bad for the economy, unless one assumes that a strong economy is an end in itself, more important than the welfare of the people some of us thought the economy was supposed to serve.

The bottom line being, if you are in business trying to sell something that someone else is willing to give away out of some sort of civic-mindedness, you should be looking for a new business to be in. If you are investing R&D money in a speculative venture, you should be prepared to lose big if demand for your product does not materialize, as well as win big if it does.

Re:Silly counter-argument

[wfrp01]

unless one assumes that a strong economy is an end in itself, more important than the welfare of the people some of us thought the economy was supposed to serve.

I don't see how having a strong economy can be incompatible with social welfare. I've always kind of thought they are the same thing. I think the problem is that some people equate 'strong economy' with a dystopian vision of concentrated power and greed uber alles. Stomping competing software and competing licensing models out of existence does nothing to create a 'strong economy' that I can see.

Problems with this

[Com2Kid]

I remember reading up the other day on a game called Star Command.

When asked why they didn't release the game for free or open source it, a person in the company (CEO/Lead developer or some such high up person, small company anyways) said that it would take too much of their time and money.

First they would have to try and FIND the source code (doubtful if it still existed), then if they managed to do that, reassign some people from another money making project to taking an old (in this case DOS game) and removing the protections and security checks they put in there and scanning in the documentation, bundeling it up, setting up a server for distribution (or maintaining a sourceforge account, granted they could pass it on to somebody, but then that entales the legal issues involved), all just to make a few people happy that they could now freely get an old DOS game.

Sure it /MIGHT/ be upgraded to something modern and ported all over heck and such, but shoot, reality is that it would cost them MONEY when they are already a struggeling small company.

Not to mention cases where the rights to a program are split across a few gazzilion people and numerious corporations. This is especialy true when one company has the rights to the game and another company has the rights to distribution. Icky situation there. And if by some chance somebody sold off merchandising rights. . . . oh man, no hope at /ALL/.

A good first step though would be to /REDUCE/ the copyright limit. ~7years for computer programs and ~25 years for books and other documents sounds nice. (Some books stay in print and keep on selling for longer then that though)

At least it would take care of the legal hassles somewhat, but it still wouldn't help with finding the sourcecode.

"umm, lets see now, where did I shove that 5.25' disk. . . . . "

Re:Problems with this

[GemFire]

If everything copyrighted had to be properly registered with the copyright office as was originally required, then the source code would be available from the copyright office once the work was declared PD.

One of the stupidest changes made in the 1976 revision to copyright law was the elimination of the registration requirement. Now everything in the world is automatically copyrighted, but no one is required to take any responsibility for their creations.

Reply to BrettGlass

[ryants]

Ironically, the failure of my competitor is likely to kill my company, too -- EVEN IF MY PRODUCT IS SUPERIOR. (People will tolerate many shortcomings in something that's free.)

Then why doesn't Linux (*BSD, etc) own 95% of the desktop market?

The situation gets worse still if the GPL enters the picture. If the competitor's code is released under the GPL, I cannot so much as LOOK at it.

Sure you can. Just don't copy it.

Thus, the sudden release of software from companies that go out of business either into the public domain or (worse) under the GPL can cause a chain reaction which destroys any incentives to create or improve products in that category.

*laugh* Really... Microsoft continues to "compete" with Linux, KOffice, etc. Eudora competes with mutt. I'm afraid I just don't see any justification for the above statement.

Re:Reply to BrettGlass

[Corgha]

The situation gets worse still if the GPL enters the picture. If the competitor's code is released under the GPL, I cannot so much as LOOK at it.

Sure you can. Just don't copy it.

Not to mention the fact that if the competitor's code weren't released, he certainly wouldn't be able to look at it or copy it anyway.

Seems like a null statement to me, or just more "save us from the viral GPL" nonsense.

Honestly, nothing about the GPL forces you to take someone else's code and steal it for your proprietary uses. Coders who complain that the GPL is "viral" and want all code to be closed or BSD-licensed are like men who complain that women are too tempting and want them to cover themselves in robes and veils. If your urge to sin (to steal someone else's copyrighted work and try to sell it as your own) is unsurmountable, the blame lies with you; don't try to push it onto the GPL or the person who wrote the code.

It's a human tendency to feel tempted and to resent the object of one's temptations, and it is perhaps understandable, but it is not something on which policy should be based or about which one can rightfully complain.

After all, if you're feeling frustrating desires for the beautiful people or code around you, both can be satisfied with your own hand(s) ;)

(boy am I going to get flamed for this one. bye-bye karma)

Ah....Abandonware

[syrupMatt]

The debate over abadonware has been going on for awhile now (though it usually centers around the gaming arena).

It's good to see someone with ranking stature taking on such a muddled but oddly important issue. The reason most companies would be against giving away outright their copyright on "abandonded" products is the fear of repackaging and their loss on what could be someone else's gain. However, if legislation (or a license) could be produced to qualm these kinds of fears while still allowing legitimate uses of abandonded products to take place, I think a happy medium between both sides would be found.

giving s/w away is not a disaster for others

[markj02]

Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else.

I presume what the poster means is that by giving away the software, the company destroys the market for the competitors.

Well, that isn't quite true, as we have seen again and again. In fact, in real life, the source code and executable are only a small part of the value of a software product. Most of the value is in the ongoing maintenance, business relationships, trademarks, the user base, the books that have been written about it, in short, the "network" that surrounds it.

To the degree that it is true, well, software companies simply have to get used to the fact that, once created, it costs nothing to give software to additional people--that ultimately has a lot of influence over how software can be priced and licensed. There is no use whining about basic economic realities.

Re:Flawed Logic

[cduffy]

If you read BrettGlass's argument, you'd realized that he wasn't arguing disaster due to bad code, but disaster due to individuals using a free alternative over a superior still-commercial product, driving the developers of that commercial product out of business..

His argument that freeing abandoned software would eliminate all incentive to produce is indeed flawed -- there are many fields in which quality free software exists, is being actively (comercially) developed, and has commercial competition which has not been killed as a result.

Before responding to an argument, perhaps you should read it first.

Re:Not necessarily a good idea

[tommck]

But wouldn't this cause a trend of people not buying commercial software, and just waiting for them to go out of business so they could get it for free?

Then what would happen? We'd have free versions of stuff that is about 4 years behind the current for-profit stuff. But wait... Isn't that where we are anyway? :-)

I wish i knew what he meant by "Open Source"

[mickeyreznor]

Does he mean GPL or public domain? I would much rather prefer the latter, since it would probably be the fairest way to do it.

Re:Not necessarily a good idea

[imadork]

Although I agree that on the surface it would be great to open source, and free up all products that are no longer supported. But wouldn't this cause a trend of people not buying commercial software, and just waiting for them to go out of business so they could get it for free?

That's not necessarily what he's saying. He's saying that software that's obsolete should be opened up. It has nothing to do with the companies going under, although that certainly does cause some software to go obsolete.

Here's a perfect example: When's the last time you heard of a company making money selling Commodore 64 games? The Commodore 64 is a perfect example of an obsolete technology. But even though the technology is obsolete, and for all practical purposes, worthless, the games themselves will be copyrighted for another 90 bazillion years (give or take a few). Even the companies that still exist (like EA) are not making a dime from these games, yet they are still protected. Why? How does that benefit anyone?

If someone "pirates" a Commodore 64 game today, does the SPA consider it a loss for the company at the software's full, 1985 retail price?

Failed software, good code

[StrawberryFrog]

2. You can still learn something from the source code of bad software, even if it's only what not to do.

You can learn a lot from failed software. My experience has been that software fails when requirements are vauge and the developers spend time architecting kewl stuff and polishing it rather than letting the marketing dept make sure it gives the users a few key features, and push it out the door when it's barely good enough (this is what makes MS what they are today).

Anyways the sad truth is that failed software often has really neat code. Beos, anyone?

IP issues as well...

[grnbrg]

(IANAL)
With regards to solvent companies opening "obsolete" software...

It occurs to me that part of the problem may also be in terms of companies and protecting their existing intelectual property. If a company decides that a particular software product is too old, or not selling well enough, and they release it to the public (either as source or binary) then might it be argued that they are no longer actively protecting their IP and leave themselves more open to their competitors?

For example, you can no longer (I think) buy a copy of Doom or Quake, and while the *engine* code has been released under the GPL, the rest of the games (graphics, levels, sounds, etc) remain copyrighted to id.

(/IANAL)

People are afraid of Ego Dents

[CDWert]

I agree with the recycle concept of obsolete software, there are a few companies that do this, ID Software as mentioned here last week, and a few others,

Many companies , especially smaller ones have issues releasing their code even after their demise because of Ego issues, yes Ego, they write stuuf and will sell it , and some of it is a lame horrid hack. Even if it isnt people are afraid of rejection of their coding practices,

Dont belive me, ask some people over at sun what it was like when they made their source avaiable, developers panicked, at the thought of open review of their code, I saw so much code bashing BEFORE a single line was released I thought shit, anyone ever get to my code Im in trouble :) People actually feared for not only their status after peer review but their jobs as well.

Granted It may be different when a company dumps into ch11 but not a whole lot, Ive written code I am truly proud of , the stuff that people I think are out of my league have said I dont know how it can work, thats one of the nicest pieces of code Ive ever seen......AND Ive written code I myself looked at 5 years later and yelled who wrote this shit, only to see it was me...

I wouldnt want that code out there....(well some of it is....anyone running Apache on Windows :)

Ego.....makes the world go round.....

Re:What's Software Got To Do With It?

[Anonymous Coward]

One good thing about this story is it has been an excellent way of testing an hypothesis that I've long suspected -- that few Slashdot readers actually read a story before they decide to post their 2 cents on it. So far the results of this experiment do not reflect very well on the Slashdot readership.

Orphaned software and Abandonware

[per unit analyzer]

I think a distinction needs to be made between orphaned software and abandonware.

Software that gets orphaned by a company that goes out of business most likely is not obsolete and its release to the public could have damaging effects on competitors. However, if that's the case, it's the job of the bankruptcy judge, trustee, or whoever is shutting down the company to recognize that software still has value. If the software is still so competitive it could put someone else out of business, chances are someone will want to buy that software. And that value should be returned to creditors or shareholders of the defunct company that otherwise would receive nothing.

Abandonware on the other hand, is software that its "parent" deems obsolete and of little or no value anymore. There are a lot of other programmers (both hobbiest and professional) that could take advantage of recycling "useless" code. O'Reilly's example of a user wanting to share "obsolete" software for a niche application is something I have experienced myself and it is frustrating. I say encourage companies to release their abandonware to the public.

In either case however, the decision should be voluntary, and in the case of bankruptcy, with input from all interested parties.

I can understand why companies (especially the big guys) are reluctant to share abandonware. The support issue really never goes away. In some cases there might be some lingering IP that you carried through to your current products that your competitors still don't have, and you might not even know it. I think a lot of companies hold onto abandonware because they don't want to unknowingly form the basis for someone else's business or worse yet, aid their competitors.

-z

What about out of print books?

[guerby]

Does he plan to make all the out of print books
text available?

Failure of copyright to establish a public domain

[jms]

This article illustrates the complete failure of the only constitutional purpose of modern copyright law with respect to software -- a failure to establish a public domain, in both senses of the word.

The first sense is the idea of public domain as "uncopyrighted" or "expired copyright." Had Congress resisted the urge to tamper with the copyright laws in 1976, things would be different. Under the pre-1976 copyright regime, copyright lasted for 28 years, with the option to re-register for an additional 28 year term. Under this system, abandonware from the early 1970s would be now regularly entering the public domain. In two or so years, we would start to see the first generation of abandoned PC software enter the public domain -- old Apple II software, games and system software from long-lost companies. Instead, by repeatedly extending copyright, and removing the renewal requirement, Congress has essentially consigned the history of computer software to destruction. Very few of us will live long enough to be allowed to legally copy the software that was written before many of us were even born. Even if we did live long enough, the media will have long decayed, any software from the early days of personal computers will only survive as illegally made copies. In essence, Congress has criminalized the work of the historian and archivist, with no real benefit to anyone.

There is another sense of the "public domain" in which the copyright laws have even more drastically failed. This is the sense of the "public domain" as "the body of work available to the public to read and learn from." The problem is that by allowing copyright on object code, and by allowing software publishers to treat source code as trade secrets, in essence, computer programmers are forced to learn their trade from scratch. Imagine if a student expressed an interest in becoming a writer, and was told, "If you want to be a writer, you will never be permitted to legally read books written by successful, popular authors." I doubt that the result would be better literature, but that our public policy with respect to software -- both by attaching copyright protection to object code, and by allowing the attachment of licenses to software that forbid reverse-engineering -- a technical term for "reading" software.

The primary purpose of copyright was to place knowledge into the public domain. That's why patents must be openly published, and why, originally, only published works were eligible for copyright. Now, with copyright protection automatically attaching to all works, whether or not they are ever published in a form that adds to the public domain, we are back to the bad old days of proprietary licensing of -- and the subsequent destruction of learning and knowledge -- the very problem that copyright was designed to put an end to!

I believe that the real revolution in free software is not a better business model. It is not the sense of community that it fosters. It is not the reduced costs or the improved quality.

The real revolution in free software is that it in effect reestablishes the public domain that has been systematically destroyed by Congress in passing ever more restrictive, destructive copyright legislation. In the year 2002, free software is the public domain. It's the software that you can download, study, modify, improve, sell, and give away. It's the software that you can learn from, instead of just use.

Unlike proprietary software, free software is the software that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts, and anyone who is interested in promoting progress in the field of computer science should strongly consider releasing their software under the GPL, after its commercial potential has been exhausted.

Abandoned IP

[Squirrel Killer]

Susan Aker wrote an excellent piece for OSOpinion about a year ago that compliments Tim's. She talks more about a change in the legal status of abandoned IP than Tim's focus to create an additional mandate on the abandoning companies. And since abandonment, in a legal sense, is a pretty specific concept, BrettGlass's concerns are addressed as well (abandonment would take enough time for a commercial package to make significant enhancements to keep their market share.)

I really disagree with Tim's proposal to force abandoned code to be made available at the source code level. That's not free speech, it's forced speech. Sure Lotus Improv is out there already, it's been abandoned, let people copy the binaries as they wish. But to force Lotus to cough up the source is an unreasonable burden. Hell, the source code could be near impossible to find even for the original programmers. Finally, the source code can represent an asset for the company that will be valuable when they sell off.

-sk

Obligation? Not really.

[sulli]

Developers/publishers have the option to release their expired/retired/obsolete code. I personally think it's a good idea to release it, and under a relatively free license like BSD, but it's really up to the publisher.

BrettGlass' objections to the GPL are just that - GPL specific. Really this is easy to work around; (1) if you don't like GPL, don't release it that way; and (2) if you don't like GPL, don't use GPL code, including obsolete code. The publisher can and should decide which way (GPL or something else) is better.

What I don't see is the downside. What possible harm could come from code being out there? Sure, it's harmful to competitors, but so also is newly written GPL (or BSD, or ...) code that's out there, free as in beer/speech, and in any case protecting competitors shouldn't be our business.

If it's bad for the publisher, for example if it increases support costs or cannibalizes sales of the current product, then of course the publisher may choose to trash it. But if it isn't, there's zero (0) harm to anyone else, so let's encourage this behavior!

always costs money to do this

[egomaniac]

The request sounds simple in theory, but as always it's more complicated than this.

What if somebody is scanning through the code and finds

// we have to do it this way because Intel is a bunch of fucking idiots

Would you really want that being leaked into the public? Particularly if you have a close working relationship with Intel?

Or how about:

// Bob Martel isn't at the company anymore, so I can safely say that this is the worse piece of shit code I've ever seen. I'll rewrite it when I get a chance

Not to mention potentially plagiarized code, or patent violations, or any number of other nastiness buried in the code. Sure, it *probably* doesn't contain any of the above, but do you really want to scan through all two million lines of it just to make sure?

Further, every time somebody wants to see my source code, I find myself preparing it a little more thoroughly. Removing a few of those ugly hacks, documenting the ones I can't remove ... sort of like quickly straightening up the house before visitors show up. I don't want people seeing my dirty laundry. If I don't have time to straighten up, I'd rather not let people in at all.

Source code is the same way -- you generally don't want other people looking over it until you've had a chance to clean it up a little bit. If you don't want to clean it up, you just don't release it. Releasing source code *always* costs time and money to a corporation.

really, REALLY silly

[Doktor Memory]

I have to disagree with him on the degree of harm that would be caused to commercial development efforts by this. The market has already shown a tendancy to go with commercially supported solutions.

You're being kind.

He is basically arguing that if a failed package in a given market becomes free, it will automatically overtake the previously victorious competitor, even if it is missing features or buggy.

Unfortunately, historical fact proves exactly the opposite. StarOffice/OpenOffice hasn't made even a fractional percentage dent into Microsoft Office's sales. Interbase has taken exactly zero customers away from Oracle.

Now, it is certainly true that a pre-existing free product may discourage further development in the niche it occupies. Thus do we have the complete paucity of alternatives to GCC on the Linux and BSD platforms. But that's a very different scenario than the one Glass is addressing.