The other important economic argument for IP is that it provides an incentive for research. The idea is that there would be much less research if inventors/companies could not profit from some kind of exclusive rights to their invention. I believe that there is some merit to this view, but the problem, in many cases, is that the policy is very badly implemented. According to the logic of this argument, the incentive is supposed to be there to stimulate extra creativity. Giving patents for methods that any engineer would have thought up the first time she addressed a problem clearly fall short on this criteria. And this type of problem is compounded when the officials responsible for granting patents do not have an adequate technical background to evaluate the true originality and creativity of an idea. Also note that since this economic argument is purely pragmatic in nature, it should be vulnerable to pragmatic objections in general - i.e. if it doesn't serve society well to grant a particular kind of exclusivity privilege for 20 years, then the privilege should be for less time or not at all.
What the debate about the AAPL says to me is that the definition of Open Source (tm) is buggy. There is not much actual disagreement about the idea that a license which allows the original author to revoke subsequent authors use rights, at the orignal author's discretion, due to circumstances beyond any author's control, is undesirable for the open source community. But there is apparently disagreement about whether the Open Source Definition allows a license with this property. If ESR, Perens, and Stallman (representative of experienced readers of software licenses) can't agree about this, then there is a problem. The Open Source Definition should be fixed so as not to allow undesirable licenses and to not be ambiguous about what it says. It isn't shocking to find out that there is this kind of loophole in the definition - there will probably turn out to be others. But it's reasonable to expect that whatever organization or group of people is in charge of this definition will take perform suitable maintenance on it. Until such steps are taken, this whole debate about what should or not be allowed, and who did or didn't jump the gun, is just another version of the justly ridiculed position that "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
Hopefully the LSB or something like it will refer to a publicly available test suite for Linux distributions. Commercial application developers would ideally support distributions that are in compliance with the test suite and help add to the suite when they see a problem.
You allude to the fact that if the license terms are not the right kind to allow the existing code to become a base for new efforts then developers will spend the effort to build alternative open versions. Well those are *big* efforts. Don't you think it is useful to have a term telling developers whether or not they need to do that? That's the kind of thing that linguistic categories are for. It is worth arguing about. - Josh
RedHat has shown that they are committed to contributing valuable free software to the community and that they are not basing their distribution around proprietary technologies - only free software. However, they are a commercial company that is selling an operating platform and it is natural to expect that they must take advantage of opportunities to create value-added aspects to their product. They shouldn't be attacked for this, but it is okay to worry about the possibility of a small degree of fragmentation (in things like training courses, for instance). Note that "worry" is not the same as criticize. This downside should be seen as a reasonable price to pay for the investment that RedHat is bringing in to Linux. People who think this is very worrying should support Debian, an all-volunteer, non-profit, effort. Personally, I'm not too worried but I prefer Debian just because it is a better overall distrubution, and I contribute donations each time I upgrade. *-- Josh
If Dell is tacking a premium onto their Linux boxes that means they think people will pay the price. Be flattered. It also means that they think they don't have margin pressure because they are the first of the "big guys" to sell a pre-loaded, direct, Linux desktop. When other competitors show up and compete in this niche then the price will fall. --- Josh
My solution to what should happen if Microsoft loses the anti-trust trial is that every interview with them would be accompanied by a little notice stating that "U.S. authorities have determined that most of what the Microsoft Corporation discloses to the press is complete bullshit." Of course I am being facetious, but only a little bit. --- Josh
are the people whose attitudes will determine the ultimate influence of free software, not startup entrepreneurs who want to make a quick buck. Corporations are very concerned about costs and about depreciation vs. appreciation of their investments (including, most significantly, the time required to train personnel). If they come to believe that the free software model is an advantage for them, then there will be a (bigger) revolution. If they think it is too time consuming and doesn't help productivity then they will not care. The Red Herring article is geared to startup entrepreneurs because that is the focus of that magazine, but those are probably not the people who will decide the issue. And if they do, it will be as consumers (like ISPs, web- sites), not as software producers.
Slashdot Mirror
The other important economic argument for IP is that it provides an incentive for research. The idea is that there would be much less research if inventors/companies could not profit from some kind of exclusive rights to their invention. I believe that there is some merit to this view, but the problem, in many cases, is that the policy is very badly implemented. According to the logic of this argument, the incentive is supposed to be there to stimulate extra creativity. Giving patents for methods that any engineer would have thought up the first time she addressed a problem clearly fall short on this criteria. And this type of problem is compounded when the officials responsible for granting patents do not have an adequate technical background to evaluate the true originality and creativity of an idea. Also note that since this economic argument is purely pragmatic in nature, it should be vulnerable to pragmatic objections in general - i.e. if it doesn't serve society well to grant a particular kind of exclusivity privilege for 20 years, then the privilege should be for less time or not at all.
Go to http://www.pricewatch.com and look at all the
cheapest systems with pre-installed OS. They are
mostly Linux and a lot of them are using KDE.
What the debate about the AAPL says to me is that the definition of Open Source (tm) is buggy. There is not much actual disagreement about the idea that a license which allows the original author to revoke subsequent authors use rights, at the orignal author's discretion, due to circumstances beyond any author's control, is undesirable for the open source community. But there is apparently disagreement about whether the Open Source Definition allows a license with this property. If ESR, Perens, and Stallman (representative of experienced readers of software licenses) can't agree about this, then there is a problem. The Open Source Definition should be fixed so as not to allow undesirable licenses and to not be ambiguous about what it says. It isn't shocking to find out that there is this kind of loophole in the definition - there will probably turn out to be others. But it's reasonable to expect that whatever organization or group of people is in charge of this definition will take perform suitable maintenance on it. Until such steps are taken, this whole debate about what should or not be allowed, and who did or didn't jump the gun, is just another version of the justly ridiculed position that "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
Hopefully the LSB or something like it will refer to a publicly available test suite for Linux distributions. Commercial application developers would ideally support distributions that are in compliance with the test suite and help add to the suite when they see a problem.
You allude to the fact that if the license terms are not the right kind to allow the existing code to become a base for new efforts then developers will spend the effort to build alternative open versions. Well those are *big* efforts. Don't you think it is useful to have a term telling developers whether or not they need to do that? That's the kind of thing that linguistic categories are for. It is worth arguing about. - Josh
RedHat has shown that they are committed to contributing valuable free software to the community and that they are not basing their distribution around proprietary technologies - only free software. However, they are a commercial company that is selling an operating platform and it is natural to expect that they must take advantage of opportunities to create value-added aspects to their product. They shouldn't be attacked for this, but it is okay to worry about the possibility of a small degree of fragmentation (in things like training courses, for instance). Note that "worry" is not the same as criticize. This downside should be seen as a reasonable price to pay for the investment that RedHat is bringing in to Linux. People who think this is very worrying should support Debian, an all-volunteer, non-profit, effort. Personally, I'm not too worried but I prefer Debian just because it is a better overall distrubution, and I contribute donations each time I upgrade. *-- Josh
If Dell is tacking a premium onto their Linux boxes that means they think people will pay the price. Be flattered. It also means that they think they don't have margin pressure because they are the first of the "big guys" to sell a pre-loaded, direct, Linux desktop. When other competitors show up and compete in this niche then the price will fall. --- Josh
My solution to what should happen if Microsoft loses the
anti-trust trial is that every interview with them would be
accompanied by a little notice stating that
"U.S. authorities have determined that most of what the
Microsoft Corporation discloses to the press is complete
bullshit." Of course I am being facetious, but
only a little bit. --- Josh
Which story category is typically signaled
by an icon that looks like it could be Samuel
Beckett's vision of Don King's afterlife?
are the people whose attitudes will determine the
ultimate influence of free software, not startup
entrepreneurs who want to make a quick buck.
Corporations are very concerned about costs and
about depreciation vs. appreciation of their
investments (including, most significantly, the
time required to train personnel). If they
come to believe that the free software model is
an advantage for them, then there will be a
(bigger) revolution. If they think it is too time
consuming and doesn't help productivity then they
will not care. The Red Herring article is geared
to startup entrepreneurs because that is the
focus of that magazine, but those are probably
not the people who will decide the issue. And if
they do, it will be as consumers (like ISPs, web-
sites), not as software producers.
- Josh