Sorry, I didn't realize people disliked knowledge and critical thinking on Slashdot. My mistake.
And my POINT is that there is no reason to believe, that I can see, that the Business Source license can be extended arbitrarily. If I download the code, see when the license will expire, and wait for that period, what legal basis would the business have for preventing me from using that code? If you can think of one I would like to hear it. But as far as I know you can't retroactively apply a software license.
If you had read the article you would have noticed: "I truly belive that Open Source is a better way to develop software." But Open Source is not always practical for a business. He's proposing this as a more open alternative to Open Core, not as a more closed alternative to Open Source. At least that's my impression.
And...
>copyrights and patents that can be deferred just about forever.
No idea where you're taking that from. It's a fixed time period stamped on the file, it's not forever.
You are incredibly naive. First of all, the use of the word "bad" needs a context, so I'll assume we're referring to "bad" with respect to the overall prosperity of a society. In the case of software, it's arguable whether patents are doing any good. But it should be obvious that in many cases outside the realm of software, innovative products need funding to become realized for the good of society. And that funding will be proportional to the profitability of the product (at least as long as we have a capitalist economy!). Some level of patents are necessary to ensure that profitability; companies will not invest in something if their competition can simply copy it and steal their profit.
Do you disagree with that statement? Do you believe that, in the absence of patent law, a company would invest in something simply out of goodwill? Then you are naive! Individuals are willing to do this (with platforms such as Kickstarter), but companies exist for the sole purpose of pleasing their shareholders, and most of the time, those shareholders want to make money.
But too MUCH patent law, and the overhead costs start to outweigh the benefits. That's the curve in the article. When we start patenting crap like "phone with curved corners", it's not protecting anyone, it's just draining money into legal expenses.
I feel like, in this area, Slashdot exists in a bubble devoid of basic business logic. It reminds me of the communities where people argue that anarchy is the best form of government (please don't tell me that happens here too). Anyway, it's getting kind of old.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I didn't realize people disliked knowledge and critical thinking on Slashdot. My mistake.
And my POINT is that there is no reason to believe, that I can see, that the Business Source license can be extended arbitrarily. If I download the code, see when the license will expire, and wait for that period, what legal basis would the business have for preventing me from using that code? If you can think of one I would like to hear it. But as far as I know you can't retroactively apply a software license.
If you had read the article you would have noticed: "I truly belive that Open Source is a better way to develop software." But Open Source is not always practical for a business. He's proposing this as a more open alternative to Open Core, not as a more closed alternative to Open Source. At least that's my impression.
And...
>copyrights and patents that can be deferred just about forever.
No idea where you're taking that from. It's a fixed time period stamped on the file, it's not forever.
You are incredibly naive. First of all, the use of the word "bad" needs a context, so I'll assume we're referring to "bad" with respect to the overall prosperity of a society. In the case of software, it's arguable whether patents are doing any good. But it should be obvious that in many cases outside the realm of software, innovative products need funding to become realized for the good of society. And that funding will be proportional to the profitability of the product (at least as long as we have a capitalist economy!). Some level of patents are necessary to ensure that profitability; companies will not invest in something if their competition can simply copy it and steal their profit.
Do you disagree with that statement? Do you believe that, in the absence of patent law, a company would invest in something simply out of goodwill? Then you are naive! Individuals are willing to do this (with platforms such as Kickstarter), but companies exist for the sole purpose of pleasing their shareholders, and most of the time, those shareholders want to make money.
But too MUCH patent law, and the overhead costs start to outweigh the benefits. That's the curve in the article. When we start patenting crap like "phone with curved corners", it's not protecting anyone, it's just draining money into legal expenses.
I feel like, in this area, Slashdot exists in a bubble devoid of basic business logic. It reminds me of the communities where people argue that anarchy is the best form of government (please don't tell me that happens here too). Anyway, it's getting kind of old.