I used to sell running shoes in a sporting goods store when I was in high school, and I got really good at it. Oftentimes, I'd sell 3 pairs to each person, who originally only came in for one comfortable pair. How did I do it? I told them that the way to cure their foot pain isn't to look for the perfect shoe, it's to find a few different pairs that are reasonably comfortable, and wear a different one each day. That way, your feet don't keep getting sore in the same places day in and day out since each model of shoe fits slightly differently.
For most people, it was the first time they'd ever heard of the idea, but it makes such great sense, that it's almost obvious. I used to think I was some kind of shoe genius for figuring that out - until I started noticing that selling 3 pairs of shoes to hard-core runners is really easy, they've been doing it all along...So, yes, I can vouch for the idea of rotating whatever it is that you're using repetitively, it really works, not just for shoes, but for anything.
Oh. Hi. I was just doing some math there. Did you know that 5 multiplied by 365 multiplied by 12 is 21900?
You just calculated how much a business pays in wages to a typical costa rican employee if they worked 7 days a week, for 5 years. I don't follow the rest of what you're saying, or how it's connected to your $21900 figure. Clarify?
The first world is who makes the business people there rich since the local population couldn't really do that.
Right. Costa Rica's economy is dependent on tourism, for now.
The answer, then, is the first world cannot afford to pay Costa Ricans $12 per hour.
Where'd you come up with that? If that's the answer, what was the question?
I think you're questioning whether $12 a day in wages is enough to be considered first world. Well, I lived on $12 a day while I was there, and let me tell you, life was good compared to what I'm used to in the USA. My "rent" was $8 per day, which included utilities, and DSL internet access, and I spent $2 a day eating out at local cafe's, and the last $2 I spent on bus fare. Everything I just described is exactly the same as my simple USA-lifestyle, except in the USA, I can't afford to eat out every day.
So, to sum up, I made a typical wage of $12 a day in Costa Rica, and lived slightly better than I did in the USA when I made $100 per day. When I came home to live in the USA again, it didn't feel like the USA is as "first world" as I thought it was when I left.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think anyone's using it yet, other than Zesiger itself, but I hope that changes. Seems like all the ingredients are there to make a difference in the open source revolution. The motivators, those are the important things. Everyone who makes software will have a motivation to keep making software, under the zesiger license.
A round trip from San Jose, Costa Rica (SJO) to Dallas, Texas, USA (DFW) starts at $308 according to http://www.travelocity.com/. That's not very expensive, even with Costa Rican wages. Also, here's Racsa's website, they DO offer internet access, and I HAVE used DSL through them. http://www.racsa.co.cr/ - It says they partner with Amnet to offer cable access, as you already mentioned.
In downtown San Jose, I counted at least 3 banks on every street. As for me, if I were to pick a country to start a business in, it'd be Costa Rica simply because it's growing so fast.
I'm not ignorant, but I'm not costa rican either, so maybe I seem ignorant to you, who is a costa rican...
When I had DSL in CR, I got it from Racsa in San Jose, the capital city. It's not fast DSL, but DSL it is. I had a friend of mine get DSL in her home so she could better communicate with other international parts of our company, and it seemed that Racsa is more inclined to get things done if you mention it's for business. The price was high by costa rican standards, but not unaffordable by individuals. Now, she usually gets her internet access from cafe's, not at home. Internet access is easily available to anyone in San Jose, if not at home, then at a cafe.
Maybe my definition of efficient public transportation is different from most people's. It's convenient, cheap, and gets you where you want to go fast. In the USA, it's expensive (comparatively speaking), only serves some areas, and it's SLOW, with wait times at some bus stops measured in hours.
When I say the economy is efficient, I compare my American lifestyle and it's cost, with a costa rican lifestyle and it's cost. The lifestyles aren't that different in the cities, but the Costa Ricans can do it on $12 per day, in a 40 hour work week. And their government only costs them 13% (oversimplification, but that's the gist of it).
If you disagree with the business ownership bit, and the prostitution bit, well fine. I'm only repeating my experiences (yes, actually in Costa Rica), I'm sure yours are different. One thing I did notice, that I didn't mention, is that Costa Ricans deeply resent the social problems foreigners have brought to Costa Rica. Very few Costa Ricans are at the top of CR's business boom, like so many foreigners are. They typically end up pushing around a mop instead. I'd be resentful too. Not saying you are, but it sounds like it.
The americans that live there are mostly retirees that go for the low cost of living and the tropical weather. Most of the americans that visit are male tourists or businessmen who stay in the tourist traps to see prostitutes. The young american women like to volunteer for environmental projects like saving sea turtles, in out of the way places. The American couples stay in the tourist traps, and since they're couples, they don't typically deal with prostitutes.
Most of the american visitors in Costa Rica are males travelling alone, who stay in San Jose, where the prostitutes are. In fact, Americans are pretty hard to find sometimes, until you walk near the bars and brothels. There's a place called Morazan Park that has a lot of "Gringo Bars" where the prostitutes hang out. I saw my first American there - dozens of them, actually - after dark, wooing prostitutes.
Costa Rica is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful places in the world, but after spending a few hours hunting for americans, and only finding them at Morazan Park, it's clear what most of them are there for. During the day, I'm sure they're out seeing the other tourist attractions, but at night, they collect like bees on honey at the seedy parts of town. Some of my friends lament that Costa Rica is perceived as a "sexual paradise" by foreigners (not just americans), and all the other nice things about CR are completely forgotten.
When I left the cities, I didn't see very many americans. Most were european, with a few canadians, brazilians, israelis, and japanese mixed in. I'm sure Americans take offense to the idea that the best place to find other americans in Costa Rica is at the brothels, but from my own experience, I'm telling you, it's largely true. Tourism is Costa Rica's bread and butter, and prostitution is a large part of that, and it caters to americans, who are the ones who made Costa Rica's tourist economy possible.
I heard somewhere that Costa Rica is the #1 tourist destination for Americans, outside of the USA. Since it's so cheap to fly from the USA to CR, I believe it. I don't think travel agents pimp Costa Rica as a place to find prostitutes, but once you arrive in Costa Rica, the prostitutes will find you if you look "Gringoey" enough. Costa Rican girls are unusually beautiful as well, and that's probably the first thing every single male traveller notices.
OK, everyone seems to have some wrong ideas about what kind of country Costa Rica is, so here's a little info from someone who's actually lived there.
CR is not communist, or poverty stricken. It is in fact the most stable and economically successful latin american country, yes, it beats Mexico and Brazil as well.
Most Costa Ricans have cellphones, and DSL internet access either at home, a library, or in the neighborhood internet cafe.
The country is democratic, and very pro-technology. Many US technology companies have moved there because of the pro-technology/pro-capitalism attitude of the government.
The economy is very efficient, and it runs an American-style government on only a 13% tax base. What this means for the individuals who live there is that instead of two people in a family working 50+ hours a week to make a living, one person in a Costa Rican can make a living.
Most Costa Ricans make about $12 per day. Doesn't sound like a lot, but since the public transportation is well designed, no one needs cars. Cars are still a status symbol, however, just like everywhere else. Costa Ricans can afford (with some saving) a car, a house, a cellphone, DSL at home, a vacation to the USA, and pretty much everything else that most people think of as common in a first world country, all on $12 per day.
The country became a first world country only during the last 10 years, and although it's doing amazingly well, the job market is still catching up to the population size, especially in rural areas. The cities are where the jobs are. And most of the business owners are foreign, americans and europeans. More europeans than americans since americans for some reason don't understand what's going on around them.
Americans go to Costa Rica mostly for prostitution, so the people they encounter like to encourage their notions so that it makes the Americans feel superior, and looser with their money.
CR's economy is the fastest growing one in the america's. No small business owner I met had been in the country for more than 5 years, and every one of them had become millionaires (USD) in that time with their restaurants, hostels, construction companies, computer companies, etc.
Things have changed a bit since I've been there, but instead of imagining marxist rebels with AK-47's, imagine people in business suits with laptops and briefcases.
it says at the bottom of the page that "Zesiger License" is trademarked, so you couldn't call it a Zesiger license if you changed it, that's for sure.
looks like your other question about clauses are in the FAQ:
Q: Why are there no indemnification clauses, or limitations of warranty in this license? How come this license doesn't require credits to be given? Why are basic features of other licenses completely left out?
This license is intended only to serve the purposes enumerated in paragraph one, it's not designed to do anything else. Not everyone needs or wants all the features of other licenses - For example, there may be a fine company someday that offers warranties for it's software.
Q: What if I really need the extra features included in those other licenses? Is there some way to add those features to the Zesiger License?
Yes, you may add whatever clauses you feel is necessary to supplement this license, even if you were not the original producer of the work. However, you may not change the license itself, and you will have to accept the fact that subsequent licensees may want to add their own clauses.
Q: Being able to add clauses to this license will make it really easy for me to customize it, but what if some of my customizations are incompatible with the customizations other people make to the license?
If a conflict arises, hopefully the parties involved will resolve it themselves. If not, Zesiger Inc. will arbitrate the disagreement and deliver a verdict that best preserves the intent of the license. This license can handle any negative situation that arises, while still giving the users of the license as much freedom as they need to make it work in the wide variety of circumstances that could exist in a commercial or non-profit enterprise.
well, that basically says "all rights reserved". The courts would have to invoke fair use laws, or maybe something about false advertising or deception. In any case, I REALLY doubt a court wouldn't reject changes that go against what the users of the license are lead to believe, since the license is so general and unspecific in the first place, basically the courts don't have anything to stop them from ruling that way.
I just made that up, actually. But, maybe I'll get an opinion on it. I'm in the USA, so it'll be a USA-only opinion. Do you know any IP attorneys who would take a look at it? I'm not sure I'd like to spend tons of money on an opinion, but I like this license a lot, so maybe. As far as I know, it's a pretty obscure license, but if other people like the ideas behind this license, besides just me, then maybe it's worth pursuing. Maybe if enough people ask, the company will publish an opinion.
The GPL is a heavy-handed, no compromise approach. It demands pretty much everything in order to be part of the GPL "club". The Zesiger license offers room to breath for those who participate in open source with the condition that they have to be able to earn a living while doing it.
I agree with everything you've said - Just thought you should know. I haven't forgotten dual licensing, or any of the other licenses. I just didn't have all day to write up a report about all of them. I am biased towards the Zesiger license, since I think it's the one license out there that's most likely to fulfill everyone's goals. Now as I read it, the zesiger license LOOKS like a dual license. It's even called a "hybrid" license.For sure though, that license won't work for people who want nothing to do with open source, or for companies who's investment in a product is too great to recoup their costs in only two years. On the license page, it even gives reasons why a company would PREFER the GPL. Unique circumstances, yes, but at least it shows it's not pretending to be a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. The arbitration by zesiger thing is odd, so I'm going to fire off some emails about that getting changed.
It's not insane, and yes, I've read it. The intent of the license is clear, even to lawyers *gasp*. A retroactive change that didn't jive with the intent of the license would probably be an easily-won case if it ever went to court.
to bad that the licence your talking about is doing what copyright should be doing all along. while the timeframes in the current copyright laws works for books they dont work for movies, music or software as all three have a shorter shelf life then books.
Yeah, I think that's a key difference. Books are typically static things that don't evolve and improve very quickly. Software is particularly quick to evolve, and almost always needs some kind of "under the hood" improvement. As for movies and music, I think their copyright problems are a bit different.
if you meant that shared ownership implies communism, it logically follows that any company with more than one shareholder is communistic.
That's ridiculous. We're not talking about "shared" ownership, we're talking about FORCED shared ownership, also known as confiscation. I wasn't very clear in the sentence you're replying to, but I think you understood me. Forced sharing is communism, as the world has known communism so far. The analogy is harsh, but at least it makes clear why you're never going to get companies to willing agree to do such a thing...so we're back to having to force it on them. It just won't work in a free country. That's not to say it won't work at all, as your example URLs illustrate, I'm just saying you're never going to get a complete, cutting edge computer system with communistic techniques, because it depends on too many vendors either willingly submitting to the idea (won't happen), or being forced to submit to the idea (shouldn't happen in a free society).
AFAIK most open source projects are (or at least started as) the work of people, not corporations.
That's something that I hope will change. I think we're on the same team here. Corporations are notoriously stubborn, and they certainly need encouragement. What better way to convince them that open source is good, than to hand them a juicy platter of quality software that they can build upon to get a leg up on their non-open source competitors? If they can do that, they won't mind having to release their source, just don't take away the competitive advantage by forcing them to release the source before they can recoup their costs!
Or were you bemoaning over companies inability to take GPL'd code, add some features, and sell the result as their own proprietary product ? If so, keep on lamenting; you won't get any sympathy from me.
That's exactly what I'm bemoaning (and lamenting). Companies aren't going to add features unless they can make a profit by doing it. Now, imagine if companies could make a profit...presto! We get new features. Now imagine that after the company's made it's profit, they're forced to release their source. Now you have the source to some great code that never would have existed unless somebody got paid to make it. As an added bonus, imagine that the company decides it needs to make more money, since the gravy-train ended after it released it's source. So what do they do? Add even more features, and release yet another iteration of the product.
If you understand how a capitalistic economy works, I don't have to explain to you why motivating companies to keep producing improved versions of their products is a good thing. However, I'd like to point out that after a company releases it's source, there'll be other companies adding features as well, in the same COPY, EXTEND, SELL, and then RELEASE cycle.
Basically, what I've just described is the snowball-effect on software evolution that the GPL hoped to achieve, but didn't. The GPL has worked, don't get me wrong, it just hasn't worked as well as it might have if it were able to convince money-motivated businesses to participate as well.
I think in a few years' time, we'll see technology that could be adapted to a garage electronics shop. Some things might still have to be purchased from a commercial vendor, like silicon wafers and such, but I've seen plenty of articles in MIT Technology Review during the last 5 years that really look like they could allow hobbyists to cheaply produce their own microelectronics.
I think the hard part is going to be getting our hands on the software needed to design the things though. Here's some info that might might get you started if you want to browse for more ideas - http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004May/bch20040 525025304.htm
And who exactly, when they've spent years working on a project on nothing more than blood sweat and tears... is going to allow a company to come in, fork their code, write their own extensions, and keep them locked up ad infinitum?
You do actually have to read the license before you can say that it allows companies to take your code and "lock it up". BSD allows code to be locked up permanently, Zesiger does not. That's a crucial difference.
The GPL version of open source is not going to work, especially if you want an entire system from thousands of different vendors to be 100% open source. It's hard enough to get industry-wide standards adopted WITHOUT requiring everyone to give their products away for free.
The only thing that will work is to either reinvent the wheel from scratch, in your own country, under communism, and hope you'll succeed where no one else has. (China seems to be making progress).
-OR-
Come up with an open source license that doesn't take away control of finished products from companies who haven't yet had a chance to earn a profit from their work
The GPL doesn't work, it requires immediate release of source that can be used by competitors or would-be customers, and eliminates the profit motive.
The BSD license doesn't work because it doesn't require the release of source.
The only license I know of that might work is the Zesiger License because it allows companies to use open source in their products, and keep their source closed (like BSD) for two years before they're required to release the source (like GPL).
Two years of marketing and sales ought to be enough time for most companies to earn a profit on their work. The end result will be that instead of having two factions, Stallman and his followers, and Gates and his followers, with a fence in the middle, you end up with the two factions cooperating, and using each other's work to produce great products.
Slashdot Mirror
Dylan seems like a possible alternative to C++. Here's some more Dylan resources for those who want to look into the language a little further.
I used to sell running shoes in a sporting goods store when I was in high school, and I got really good at it. Oftentimes, I'd sell 3 pairs to each person, who originally only came in for one comfortable pair. How did I do it? I told them that the way to cure their foot pain isn't to look for the perfect shoe, it's to find a few different pairs that are reasonably comfortable, and wear a different one each day. That way, your feet don't keep getting sore in the same places day in and day out since each model of shoe fits slightly differently.
For most people, it was the first time they'd ever heard of the idea, but it makes such great sense, that it's almost obvious. I used to think I was some kind of shoe genius for figuring that out - until I started noticing that selling 3 pairs of shoes to hard-core runners is really easy, they've been doing it all along...So, yes, I can vouch for the idea of rotating whatever it is that you're using repetitively, it really works, not just for shoes, but for anything.
Interesting post...when you say how easily you were able to manipulate good people, what do you mean "good people"?
Oh. Hi. I was just doing some math there. Did you know that 5 multiplied by 365 multiplied by 12 is 21900?
You just calculated how much a business pays in wages to a typical costa rican employee if they worked 7 days a week, for 5 years. I don't follow the rest of what you're saying, or how it's connected to your $21900 figure. Clarify?
The first world is who makes the business people there rich since the local population couldn't really do that.
Right. Costa Rica's economy is dependent on tourism, for now.
The answer, then, is the first world cannot afford to pay Costa Ricans $12 per hour.
Where'd you come up with that? If that's the answer, what was the question?
I think you're questioning whether $12 a day in wages is enough to be considered first world. Well, I lived on $12 a day while I was there, and let me tell you, life was good compared to what I'm used to in the USA. My "rent" was $8 per day, which included utilities, and DSL internet access, and I spent $2 a day eating out at local cafe's, and the last $2 I spent on bus fare. Everything I just described is exactly the same as my simple USA-lifestyle, except in the USA, I can't afford to eat out every day.
So, to sum up, I made a typical wage of $12 a day in Costa Rica, and lived slightly better than I did in the USA when I made $100 per day. When I came home to live in the USA again, it didn't feel like the USA is as "first world" as I thought it was when I left.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think anyone's using it yet, other than Zesiger itself, but I hope that changes. Seems like all the ingredients are there to make a difference in the open source revolution. The motivators, those are the important things. Everyone who makes software will have a motivation to keep making software, under the zesiger license.
A round trip from San Jose, Costa Rica (SJO) to Dallas, Texas, USA (DFW) starts at $308 according to http://www.travelocity.com/. That's not very expensive, even with Costa Rican wages. Also, here's Racsa's website, they DO offer internet access, and I HAVE used DSL through them. http://www.racsa.co.cr/ - It says they partner with Amnet to offer cable access, as you already mentioned.
In downtown San Jose, I counted at least 3 banks on every street. As for me, if I were to pick a country to start a business in, it'd be Costa Rica simply because it's growing so fast.
I'm not ignorant, but I'm not costa rican either, so maybe I seem ignorant to you, who is a costa rican...
When I had DSL in CR, I got it from Racsa in San Jose, the capital city. It's not fast DSL, but DSL it is. I had a friend of mine get DSL in her home so she could better communicate with other international parts of our company, and it seemed that Racsa is more inclined to get things done if you mention it's for business. The price was high by costa rican standards, but not unaffordable by individuals. Now, she usually gets her internet access from cafe's, not at home. Internet access is easily available to anyone in San Jose, if not at home, then at a cafe.
Maybe my definition of efficient public transportation is different from most people's. It's convenient, cheap, and gets you where you want to go fast. In the USA, it's expensive (comparatively speaking), only serves some areas, and it's SLOW, with wait times at some bus stops measured in hours.
When I say the economy is efficient, I compare my American lifestyle and it's cost, with a costa rican lifestyle and it's cost. The lifestyles aren't that different in the cities, but the Costa Ricans can do it on $12 per day, in a 40 hour work week. And their government only costs them 13% (oversimplification, but that's the gist of it).
If you disagree with the business ownership bit, and the prostitution bit, well fine. I'm only repeating my experiences (yes, actually in Costa Rica), I'm sure yours are different. One thing I did notice, that I didn't mention, is that Costa Ricans deeply resent the social problems foreigners have brought to Costa Rica. Very few Costa Ricans are at the top of CR's business boom, like so many foreigners are. They typically end up pushing around a mop instead. I'd be resentful too. Not saying you are, but it sounds like it.
The americans that live there are mostly retirees that go for the low cost of living and the tropical weather. Most of the americans that visit are male tourists or businessmen who stay in the tourist traps to see prostitutes. The young american women like to volunteer for environmental projects like saving sea turtles, in out of the way places. The American couples stay in the tourist traps, and since they're couples, they don't typically deal with prostitutes.
Most of the american visitors in Costa Rica are males travelling alone, who stay in San Jose, where the prostitutes are. In fact, Americans are pretty hard to find sometimes, until you walk near the bars and brothels. There's a place called Morazan Park that has a lot of "Gringo Bars" where the prostitutes hang out. I saw my first American there - dozens of them, actually - after dark, wooing prostitutes.
Costa Rica is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful places in the world, but after spending a few hours hunting for americans, and only finding them at Morazan Park, it's clear what most of them are there for. During the day, I'm sure they're out seeing the other tourist attractions, but at night, they collect like bees on honey at the seedy parts of town. Some of my friends lament that Costa Rica is perceived as a "sexual paradise" by foreigners (not just americans), and all the other nice things about CR are completely forgotten.
When I left the cities, I didn't see very many americans. Most were european, with a few canadians, brazilians, israelis, and japanese mixed in. I'm sure Americans take offense to the idea that the best place to find other americans in Costa Rica is at the brothels, but from my own experience, I'm telling you, it's largely true. Tourism is Costa Rica's bread and butter, and prostitution is a large part of that, and it caters to americans, who are the ones who made Costa Rica's tourist economy possible.
I heard somewhere that Costa Rica is the #1 tourist destination for Americans, outside of the USA. Since it's so cheap to fly from the USA to CR, I believe it. I don't think travel agents pimp Costa Rica as a place to find prostitutes, but once you arrive in Costa Rica, the prostitutes will find you if you look "Gringoey" enough. Costa Rican girls are unusually beautiful as well, and that's probably the first thing every single male traveller notices.
Anything specific you want to know, as it relates to the posted article?
OK, everyone seems to have some wrong ideas about what kind of country Costa Rica is, so here's a little info from someone who's actually lived there.
CR is not communist, or poverty stricken. It is in fact the most stable and economically successful latin american country, yes, it beats Mexico and Brazil as well.
Most Costa Ricans have cellphones, and DSL internet access either at home, a library, or in the neighborhood internet cafe.
The country is democratic, and very pro-technology. Many US technology companies have moved there because of the pro-technology/pro-capitalism attitude of the government.
The economy is very efficient, and it runs an American-style government on only a 13% tax base. What this means for the individuals who live there is that instead of two people in a family working 50+ hours a week to make a living, one person in a Costa Rican can make a living.
Most Costa Ricans make about $12 per day. Doesn't sound like a lot, but since the public transportation is well designed, no one needs cars. Cars are still a status symbol, however, just like everywhere else. Costa Ricans can afford (with some saving) a car, a house, a cellphone, DSL at home, a vacation to the USA, and pretty much everything else that most people think of as common in a first world country, all on $12 per day.
The country became a first world country only during the last 10 years, and although it's doing amazingly well, the job market is still catching up to the population size, especially in rural areas. The cities are where the jobs are. And most of the business owners are foreign, americans and europeans. More europeans than americans since americans for some reason don't understand what's going on around them.
Americans go to Costa Rica mostly for prostitution, so the people they encounter like to encourage their notions so that it makes the Americans feel superior, and looser with their money.
CR's economy is the fastest growing one in the america's. No small business owner I met had been in the country for more than 5 years, and every one of them had become millionaires (USD) in that time with their restaurants, hostels, construction companies, computer companies, etc.
Things have changed a bit since I've been there, but instead of imagining marxist rebels with AK-47's, imagine people in business suits with laptops and briefcases.
Any other questions, just ask.
it says at the bottom of the page that "Zesiger License" is trademarked, so you couldn't call it a Zesiger license if you changed it, that's for sure.
looks like your other question about clauses are in the FAQ:
Q: Why are there no indemnification clauses, or limitations of warranty in this license? How come this license doesn't require credits to be given? Why are basic features of other licenses completely left out?
This license is intended only to serve the purposes enumerated in paragraph one, it's not designed to do anything else. Not everyone needs or wants all the features of other licenses - For example, there may be a fine company someday that offers warranties for it's software. Q: What if I really need the extra features included in those other licenses? Is there some way to add those features to the Zesiger License?
Yes, you may add whatever clauses you feel is necessary to supplement this license, even if you were not the original producer of the work. However, you may not change the license itself, and you will have to accept the fact that subsequent licensees may want to add their own clauses.
Q: Being able to add clauses to this license will make it really easy for me to customize it, but what if some of my customizations are incompatible with the customizations other people make to the license?
If a conflict arises, hopefully the parties involved will resolve it themselves. If not, Zesiger Inc. will arbitrate the disagreement and deliver a verdict that best preserves the intent of the license. This license can handle any negative situation that arises, while still giving the users of the license as much freedom as they need to make it work in the wide variety of circumstances that could exist in a commercial or non-profit enterprise.
well, that basically says "all rights reserved". The courts would have to invoke fair use laws, or maybe something about false advertising or deception. In any case, I REALLY doubt a court wouldn't reject changes that go against what the users of the license are lead to believe, since the license is so general and unspecific in the first place, basically the courts don't have anything to stop them from ruling that way.
I just made that up, actually. But, maybe I'll get an opinion on it. I'm in the USA, so it'll be a USA-only opinion. Do you know any IP attorneys who would take a look at it? I'm not sure I'd like to spend tons of money on an opinion, but I like this license a lot, so maybe. As far as I know, it's a pretty obscure license, but if other people like the ideas behind this license, besides just me, then maybe it's worth pursuing. Maybe if enough people ask, the company will publish an opinion.
The GPL is a heavy-handed, no compromise approach. It demands pretty much everything in order to be part of the GPL "club". The Zesiger license offers room to breath for those who participate in open source with the condition that they have to be able to earn a living while doing it.
Maybe for medical devices as well?
I agree with everything you've said - Just thought you should know. I haven't forgotten dual licensing, or any of the other licenses. I just didn't have all day to write up a report about all of them. I am biased towards the Zesiger license, since I think it's the one license out there that's most likely to fulfill everyone's goals. Now as I read it, the zesiger license LOOKS like a dual license. It's even called a "hybrid" license.For sure though, that license won't work for people who want nothing to do with open source, or for companies who's investment in a product is too great to recoup their costs in only two years. On the license page, it even gives reasons why a company would PREFER the GPL. Unique circumstances, yes, but at least it shows it's not pretending to be a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. The arbitration by zesiger thing is odd, so I'm going to fire off some emails about that getting changed.
It's not insane, and yes, I've read it. The intent of the license is clear, even to lawyers *gasp*. A retroactive change that didn't jive with the intent of the license would probably be an easily-won case if it ever went to court.
to bad that the licence your talking about is doing what copyright should be doing all along. while the timeframes in the current copyright laws works for books they dont work for movies, music or software as all three have a shorter shelf life then books.
Yeah, I think that's a key difference. Books are typically static things that don't evolve and improve very quickly. Software is particularly quick to evolve, and almost always needs some kind of "under the hood" improvement. As for movies and music, I think their copyright problems are a bit different.
if you meant that shared ownership implies communism, it logically follows that any company with more than one shareholder is communistic.
That's ridiculous. We're not talking about "shared" ownership, we're talking about FORCED shared ownership, also known as confiscation. I wasn't very clear in the sentence you're replying to, but I think you understood me. Forced sharing is communism, as the world has known communism so far. The analogy is harsh, but at least it makes clear why you're never going to get companies to willing agree to do such a thing...so we're back to having to force it on them. It just won't work in a free country. That's not to say it won't work at all, as your example URLs illustrate, I'm just saying you're never going to get a complete, cutting edge computer system with communistic techniques, because it depends on too many vendors either willingly submitting to the idea (won't happen), or being forced to submit to the idea (shouldn't happen in a free society).
AFAIK most open source projects are (or at least started as) the work of people, not corporations.
That's something that I hope will change. I think we're on the same team here. Corporations are notoriously stubborn, and they certainly need encouragement. What better way to convince them that open source is good, than to hand them a juicy platter of quality software that they can build upon to get a leg up on their non-open source competitors? If they can do that, they won't mind having to release their source, just don't take away the competitive advantage by forcing them to release the source before they can recoup their costs!
Or were you bemoaning over companies inability to take GPL'd code, add some features, and sell the result as their own proprietary product ? If so, keep on lamenting; you won't get any sympathy from me.
That's exactly what I'm bemoaning (and lamenting). Companies aren't going to add features unless they can make a profit by doing it. Now, imagine if companies could make a profit...presto! We get new features. Now imagine that after the company's made it's profit, they're forced to release their source. Now you have the source to some great code that never would have existed unless somebody got paid to make it. As an added bonus, imagine that the company decides it needs to make more money, since the gravy-train ended after it released it's source. So what do they do? Add even more features, and release yet another iteration of the product.
If you understand how a capitalistic economy works, I don't have to explain to you why motivating companies to keep producing improved versions of their products is a good thing. However, I'd like to point out that after a company releases it's source, there'll be other companies adding features as well, in the same COPY, EXTEND, SELL, and then RELEASE cycle.
Basically, what I've just described is the snowball-effect on software evolution that the GPL hoped to achieve, but didn't. The GPL has worked, don't get me wrong, it just hasn't worked as well as it might have if it were able to convince money-motivated businesses to participate as well.
http://www.nanosolar.com/articles.htm
They've got government contracts, funding out the wazoo, etc. They're not just a garage shop with fancy website.
no, not unless you want to install all the tiny power wires by hand.
I think in a few years' time, we'll see technology that could be adapted to a garage electronics shop. Some things might still have to be purchased from a commercial vendor, like silicon wafers and such, but I've seen plenty of articles in MIT Technology Review during the last 5 years that really look like they could allow hobbyists to cheaply produce their own microelectronics.
I think the hard part is going to be getting our hands on the software needed to design the things though. Here's some info that might might get you started if you want to browse for more ideas - http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004May/bch20040 525025304.htm
And who exactly, when they've spent years working on a project on nothing more than blood sweat and tears ... is going to allow a company to come in, fork their code, write their own extensions, and keep them locked up ad infinitum?
You do actually have to read the license before you can say that it allows companies to take your code and "lock it up". BSD allows code to be locked up permanently, Zesiger does not. That's a crucial difference.
The GPL version of open source is not going to work, especially if you want an entire system from thousands of different vendors to be 100% open source. It's hard enough to get industry-wide standards adopted WITHOUT requiring everyone to give their products away for free.
The only thing that will work is to either reinvent the wheel from scratch, in your own country, under communism, and hope you'll succeed where no one else has. (China seems to be making progress).
-OR-
Come up with an open source license that doesn't take away control of finished products from companies who haven't yet had a chance to earn a profit from their work
The GPL doesn't work, it requires immediate release of source that can be used by competitors or would-be customers, and eliminates the profit motive.
The BSD license doesn't work because it doesn't require the release of source.
The only license I know of that might work is the Zesiger License because it allows companies to use open source in their products, and keep their source closed (like BSD) for two years before they're required to release the source (like GPL).
Two years of marketing and sales ought to be enough time for most companies to earn a profit on their work. The end result will be that instead of having two factions, Stallman and his followers, and Gates and his followers, with a fence in the middle, you end up with the two factions cooperating, and using each other's work to produce great products.
Isn't that the real goal anyway?