I should have been more specific. The spammer community has lots of money. Some spammers (one of whom I used to know) themselves have lots of money. The small scale scammers fund the R&D efforts to defeat anti-spam by purchasing spam software and services from the smarter or richer. It is that economy, not the idiot in the work-at-home pyramid scheme, that I was referring to.
Also, there is a huge amount of money in internet pornography, and there seems to be a lot of spam in that department too.
Overall, adequate money to keep a number of clever programmers at working generating counter-counter-measures.
I suspect Bayesian filter will only work for a while. Spammers have a lot of money, and they can use it to hire a lot of creativity. If Bayesian filters get very popular, spammers will engage in counter-counter measures, just like a lot of them have already done to other techniques (return address filtering, IP filtering, and these days, simple keyword filtering).
I would bet that it is relatively easy to make a bit of spam that would pass most peoples' Bayesian filters... since most people are fairly alike in their email - or at least there are large subsets worth going after.
Ultimately it will be sort of a Turing challenge - my spam filter vs. your spam trying to emulate any person (not every person) that I might ever want to get email from. Doesn't sound too hard to me!
As many have pointed out, the real problem with Spam is that it as is an economic activity where people other than the spammer pay most of the costs (externalitites). The cost of mass email is only going to get cheaper unless some pretty stern measures are taken. I like Lessig's approach. Make the bastards pay. They are stealing resources!
Of course, we should do the same thing to telephone spammers, but so far nothing has been done there. It is a lot easier to propose legislation than to get it passed.
BTW... I got one of those TeleZapper things (disclaimer: I have not finanical interest in the product). It really does reduce telephone spam. Unfortunately, like most technological solutions, it also has false positives. When the library computer calls up to let me know a book is available, TeleZapper freaks it out before it delivers a message (I know this from watching caller ID). [another aside, the Phoenix, Arizona public library is so primitive that it still can't send you *email* notifications!]
I'm only going to beat a small amount of this dead horse.
LOTS of people on slashdot have argued that all software should be GPL'ed, and that is indeed the ideology of a lot of the Free Software movement. I normally read Slashdot with a filter of 4, and I see that point of view every time anything close to the issue comes up! If this thread doesn't have any (and I'm not gonna bother to look), it is because they all went beddy-bye early.
Software produced by the government means software that is written by actual employees of the federal government, during work hours, as part of their job. Such software cannot be copyrighted; it is public domain. [cornell.edu]
Your quote actually establishes my point precisely. You are quoting US Code, which indeed is frequently modified by Congress (in fact, that is what we mean by passing a law!). Thus such software could very easily be released GPL (or proprietary or anything else) if Congress were pressured to do so.
And as far as Congress amending the constitution, again, THEY CANNOT DO SO. They can propose an amendment (your quote again). Beyond that, it is another process (thank goodness!).
Thus, some people argue that such software should at the very least have its source available for inspection, either by government employees who would not be allowed to divulge the contents of the source they read, or by members of the public, or whatever. I'm not going into that issue;
Yes, now that we are getting into a tiny little piece of the idea space under discussion, you are right that some people think that the government should divulge all source that they commission. Those people are *seriously* misguided.(Do they really think that all NSA classified code is coded by government employees? How about the guidance code for the Patriot PAC-3 missile. Most highly secret code used by the government is produced by contractors - a couple of whom I worked for in the distant past - and obviously that code shouldn't be released to the public domain! Security through obscurity in fact is very important in these sorts of cases. If you don't know the exact algorithms used in weapons system, it is much harder to spoof or jam them, for example.
So we have moved into an even tinier piece... contracted code (not written by government employees) who are not writing classified stuff. Do you really think that all the posts on Slashdot about this issue relate only to that?
Even in that area, I will only argue that the source should be public domain, not GPL. In other words, most of the arguments of mine that you took such offense too do not relate to the subset of the tiny subset of discussion space in this thread!
You certainly raise a more interesting and valid argument for open source than I have seen so far in this discussion, so I will comment on that.
First, a comment. I do not assume a perfect free market. Markets are in general the best known economic decision mechanism, but they aren't perfect. Microsoft is a good example - it has a monopoly. Many free market people (including far too many of my ideological comrades in conservatives) seem to have almost a religious belief in the power of the market to always produce the right result, and thus make ignorant arguments about the Microsoft case (fortunately Judge Bork is much smarter in his arguments).
I have another essay in that blog about the failure of the free market in health insurance... and how conservatives are wrong in most of their arguments. So no, my arguments make no utopian free market assumption. In cases given, the assumption is valid. In other cases, it may not be.
What I do dislike is government interaction where it is not totally necessary. Government can only operate through the implied use of deadly force (at the extreme) and thus has vast powers that should be used very rarely. Furthermore, government mandates are usually worse than the market - government tends to be stupid, slow moving, extremely bureaucratic, and often corrupt (I suspect that you in particular would enjoy my quasi-humorous essay on the subject of bureaucracies).
Now to address your point about open source proving code ownership, and that being pro-capitalist. I believe that in balance, this point fails. The reason is that while open source allows one to prove code genesis, the only value of this is to prevent criminal theft of trade secrets. But it the process it decapitalizes the code as an asset, which I think is an even worse outcome. There are other (admittedly imperfect) remedies for trade secret theft, but any forced decapitalization of code is disastrous.
In the case of privately developed software, the owners of that software can *choose* whether to let open source or closed source protect their interest in the software, and I think that is a maximal freedom approach. IOW, if you believe that *your* commercial or personal interests are best served by GPL'ing your code... go for it! I have no problem with that. If you don't, don't. You may want to BSD it. More likely, you will keep it as a trade secret.
Since government produced (or commissioned) software is the main subject of this discussion in Slashdot, I have *no objection* to anyone taking *that* software, putting a different name and a flashy package on it, and selling it for a zillion dollars. Or, more accurately, I don't like people doing that but I don't think it appropriate to sacrifice anybody's freedoms to stop them. Their behavior may be immoral but that's their problem, not ours.
Thus I think government produced software should, in general, be released to the *public domain*, not GPL or BSD or any other non-public domain license. The government's interest in the software ends at that point. Then, whatever happens to that software is up to whatever any person or group (including corporations) wants to do with *their copy* of it. Nothing in public domain release prevents the software from remaining open source, or from GPL or BSD or other trees being derived from it. Only modified versions of the software can be closed source, because the original source is freely available from the government or archives.
I also believe the government should be allowed, with suitable oversight (this is a whole discussion in itself - how to do that with minimal corruption), to contract for closed source or even proprietary software.
Several decades ago I worked for a military consulting house and we were paid by the government to develop closed source software for them. They got the benefit of cheaper software and our expertise, and we got an asset that kept our tiny consulting company alive.
I don't thing my example should be the rule, but I do think it should be totally prohibited (perhaps, again, with suitable oversight).
And Congress could even pass a Constitutional amendment which would allow the government to retain copyright on works it produces
Not true. Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution.
Actually, I don't know how you speak for all of Slashdot or FSF about the difference between government produced and government commissioned software. Some proof would be interesting.
But what is the theoretical difference of whether the software came from a government employee, or someone or some organization that produced it on behalf of the government? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the government can negotiate a reduced cost in return for changes in the intellectual property value of the software (I once worked on a program where exactly that happened).
So do you disapprove of the government saving taxpayer money if it results in less free software? If so, why?
Your #2 point is the very first time that this issue has been raised in this thread. So please stop attacking me for arguing against a wider issue. Now that *you* have made clear the narrow range of your issue, I have responded (above) to that. So can we discuss that personally and stop psychoanalyzing my motices?
No, you don't sacrifice the code that is in fact written, because THAT CODE IS ALREADY FREE TO EVERYONE! It really is that damn simple!
I do not assume that intellectual property must follow the rules of physical property. Rather, I reason that it must have some property value (and in the US the Constitution enshrines that principle - which is why it calls for the establishment of Patents and Copyrights - so don't argue with me - amend the constitution).
Code, for the most part, is not ideas. It is a tedious collection of detailed insructions to a machine. In that sense, it is not a mathematical idea (the concept of which prevented code patents for many years) but rather an expression of an algorithm - which is most similar to music or writing.
And again, you seem to be assuming the allowing public domain software to be used in proprietary, closed source system, to cause that public domain software to vanish. That is UTTER NONSENSE. You, yourself, have the right to take very piece of public domain software ever written and to be written to be released under a GPL issued by you, if that would make you feel better!
Admit it! Your real objection is that you don't like not having access to source code (neither do I). The rest of your argument (where it isn't just totally contrary to the *facts*) is mostly a rationalization for that view.
No, I was selling radio control systems. The primary added value was the software, which I wrote. I was the efficient producer of that software - anyone can make the hardware, but I made the software back when it was early in the technology cycle for that environment.
As far as demanding control over my customers... give me a break! If I sell you a little plastic widget, you can do whatever you want with it. But you have no rights to the injection mold that went into building it. Software source is the injection mold. Binary software is the widget. Please explain why software is different??? Oh year, because you can cheaply duplicate the source - but ONLY if you can get hold of it - which is exactly why people need to keep it proprietary.
Economics is about the management of goods and labor, and ultimately about capital and more abstract things. You need to understand the concept of capital. Software *source* is indeed capital. It is tangible and very rare. The fact that it can be *stolen* and then duplicated is irrelevant. You argue that software isn't scarce. If you believe that, try duplicating my controller software. Good luck! The reason you will have trouble doing so is that *I* have the source code and you don't, and the binaries are also hard to duplicate because they are burnt into EEPROM's inside of secured microcontrollers.
As far as freedom, I don't include the right to deprive others of their freedom. They already have their freedoms. When I write software, they don't suddenly acquire *more* freedoms unless I give it to them. YOU are the one who is talking about removing freedom: my freedom to create things and not have someone else reduce its value by copying it. If I *choose* to release it with GPL, that is *my* free choice. It is not your free choice to force me to release it that way!
Nobody is forced to buy my non-GPL software. That is their freedom. My freedom is my right to release it under whatever license terms I want (within the law).
GPL does NOT guarantee continued access for all citizens any more than BSD or public domain does. The reason is that under GPL, a lot of code that would have gotten written will not be. It is really that simple.
Public Domain guarantees continued access for all citizens to the products of the government. The citizens don't have any inherent rights to the products of private individuals, even if those individuals used government effort as a starting point.
After all, most of our technology ultimately derives from government sponsored research. This is true in biotech, silicontech, spacetech, etc. Why do we want to pick out software as the only technology where we restrict the rights of what citizens can do with it?
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it. (apologies... I hit submit when I meant to hit preview, and the previous response was incorrectly formatted - so here it is again):
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it.
My argument, and Microsoft's, is against those who would *force* the government into using GPL for all of its software. And don't kid yourself, if Congress wanted to, it could indeed make government software into GPL instead of public domain - you won't find anything in the US Constitution that prevents that, and the US isn't the only country in the world. My secondary discussion is an attempt to educate the Free Software utopians in the futility of their ultimate goals.
If you read my postings more carefully (and I suggest you take a look at my more detailed my recent blog posting [tinyvital.com]), you would see that this is not the simple issue you assert I am arguing.
As far as "The GPL scares me because it threatens what I do for a living" - thanks for trolling by putting BS words into my mouth (NOT!)! I was simply pointing out (as you in fact do also) that the GPL, if used universally, simply won't work, and that forcing someone to give away their software is wrong. Oh, and I'm really not worried about this, because I expect that there will be proprietary software far into the future, as nobody has yet put forth any credible alternative scenario (short of global catastrophe or true AI). I'm not afraid - you just don't read carefully.
If I have any fear for my profession, it is that cheap foreign labor will take my job - but as long as that happens through fair competition, there is nothing inherently wrong with that in spite of whatever impact it might have on me. And, of course, it isn't germain to this issue.
Microsoft attacks GPL on several fronts. The main issue of interest has to do with attacks which actually affect laws - and this is where Microsoft is *defending* our freedoms, for their own private gain, of course. Is that such a hard concept.
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it.
My argument, and Microsoft's, is against those who would *force* the government into using GPL for all of its software. And don't kid yourself, if Congress wanted to, it could indeed make government software into GPL instead of public domain - you won't find anything in the US Constitution that prevents that, and the US isn't the only country in the world. My secondary discussion is an attempt to educate the Free Software utopians in the futility of their ultimate goals.
If you read my postings more carefully (and I suggest you take a look at my more detailed my recent blog posting), you would see that this is not the simple issue you assert I am arguing.
As far as "The GPL scares me because it threatens what I do for a living" - thanks for trolling by putting BS words into my mouth (NOT!)! I was simply pointing out (as you in fact do also) that the GPL, if used universally, simply won't work, and that forcing someone to give away their software is wrong. Oh, and I'm really not worried about this, because I expect that there will be proprietary software far into the future, as nobody has yet put forth any credible alternative scenario (short of global catastrophe or true AI). I'm not afraid - you just don't read carefully.
If I have any fear for my profession, it is that cheap foreign labor will take my job - but as long as that happens through fair competition, there is nothing inherently wrong with that in spite of whatever impact it might have on me. And, of course, it isn't germain to this issue.
Microsoft attacks GPL on several fronts. The main issue of interest has to do with attacks which actually affect laws - and this is where Microsoft is *defending* our freedoms, for their own private gain, of course. Is that such a hard concept.
All excellent points. When you can devise rules (as you did) to achieve anti-monopolistic results in a pro-active manner, you have done well!
However, in the case of Microsoft, that didn't happen. In fact, I have often argued that Microsoft owns a natural monopoly (using the economic sense of the term) and thus a desktop operating system monopoly would have originated with or without Microsoft. However, once such a monopoly has arisen, one needs to take measures to minimize the damage that may result as the company uses monopoly rents to unfairly compete in other markets.
BTW... I wrote a longer (and more trollish) discussion of the Free Software movement and put it on my blog for those who are interested.
Remember I am not arguing against GPL in general, but rather against forcing publicly developed software to be licensed as GPL.
Aha. But can't you see that this situation is *worse* than the GPL one? Imagine there is a mediocre health care claims processing application out there. Then some insurance company picks it up and modifies it. They turn it into a great application, but one that only processes insurance claims for their company. They then turn around and release that software. Now, sure, there is a better claims processing software, but its locked into a particular company.
But your argument sets up a straw man. It assumes that only one company can take the free, but mediocre software and improve and sell it. If there is a big enough market to justify investing in the software, then other companies will also come in and either use the free software or write proprietary closed-source software. If there is not a big enough market, then your examples actually shows the good side of non-GPL - it shows that someone will at least provide good claims processing software, but you have to pay for it.
This is better than just having the mediocre software out there, since it adds choices: the mediocre software is STILL THERE, and now there is a better, but more costly proprietary choice also!
BTW... I wrote a longer (and more trollish) discussion of this, which addresses your other issues in more detail, and put it on my blog for those who are interested.
Counterargument: Why should your government, to which you pay too much in taxes, permit anyone ever to take the fruits of this work and close it, taking it away from you?
This is not a counterargument to the issue of public domain. My government should *not* permit anyone to take the fruits of this work and close it (unless that was in the original contract and resulted in reduced costs to the government).
But releasing it public domain means it is *not* closed. Nobody can close *it*.
Sure, someone can take it, re-release it under a closed license, and *claim* they have closed it, but they haven't, because the original work is OBVIOUSLY STILL AVAILABLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
And is there nothing wrong with supporting a family selling copies? Is code a special kind of beast where it is okay to sell the original but not the copy?
Work for hire is one mode that programmers may want. But they may also want to be able to invest their *sweat equity* (capital) into their code, and then get a *return on their investment.*
At one time, I had a business which made small hardware widgets (ham radio repeater controllers with embedded processor). The key proprietary component in this was the software. Anyone could copy the hardware and compete with me, but it took real, rare skills and real cost (which I had already invested via my time) to produce that software. I was not about, and would never, give away that competitive edge for some GPL utopia. In that case, others would simply take my work, dupe my circuit boards, and hit the market with an unfair capital advantage over me - the creator.
Your argument is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-freedom. The only people who have freedom in this case are those who *chose* to GPL their *own* (not taxpayer supported) and those who take that code under the GPL license.
Those who take the code may or may not contribute to the GPL process. They may simply take it parasitically (as many of us do when we use Linux but don't contribute to the Linux project). In the case of Linux, that is okay - because it is expressly in the interest of those who contribute to Linux. If it wasn't, they'd be fools to GPL it!
Your doctor example has nothing to do with software, except in the case of a consultant working for a client. So let's take the latter case... assume I am a consultant producing code for someone (work for hire). I would have no right to withhold it the source from my client (unless that was in the contract, which in fact is not at all unusual). But somebody would have to GPL the software. This simply pushes the capital expenditure burden from me to them, but the economic effect hits me as well as them - if they cannot operate economically in a closed-source, no-piracy mode, then they won't pay me. And for most software, this is a reality.
Utopianism is a good way to come up with creative ideas, but unfortunately (as in this case) it always results in overapplication and nonutopian results. For some of the consequences of utopianism, see my blog my blog.
This would be fine if all situations were guaranteed to be symmetric. But that is very unlikely! Much more likely is I spend years (or my customer spends hundreds of thousands of dollars) developing the code, and then someone else simply takes it - perhaps makes a cosmetic mod - and then is in competition with me. However, they have the hundreds of thousands that *they&* didn't spend on sofware available to their marketing and support efforts. This gives them an advantage of me!
In other words, in general GPL favors the pirate over the originator. GPL only works for *voluntary* effort or in conjunction with other sources of profit (Service Contracts, Training, Hardware).
I notice that you do not attack IBM for using GPL'd UNIX to increase their *hardware profits (others in this thread have noted this). In fact, on Slashdot there is generally great cheering (which I agree with) when another hardware manufacturer adapts an open source solution.
Another way of saying this is that GPL results in programmers being paid nothing to enrich hardware makers, or software companies going bankrupt while enriching the hardware makers.
Selective condemnation is an interesting attribute of the same people who usually favor utopian solutions (for a related discussion, see www.tinyvital.com/blog and www.tinyvital.com/PCD.htm).
GPL *removes* the ability to compete over software features. With GPL everyone can take advantage of the functionality created by anybody. Thus it *ends* competition, leaving the only competition to be in the areas of servicing and marketing. This naturally benefits the large companies over the small, as the large can afford better marketing.
But why not allow the consumers to fork over cash for no added benefit? Are you their keeper? I asserted earlier that the GPL license assumes that consumers are dumb. This seems to prove the case.
If it is bundled with some other product, so what? What is wrong with this?
As far as wilful misrepresentation, it only works if the customer is dumb, or if the issue is of insufficient importance to matter. Or it may be that the consumer is unaware of the free software. In that case, the added value produced by the company is the advertising that resulted in the purchase of the software.
So again, I do not see anything wrong being done with the government produced software. It is *still* available to anyone that wants it. For those who don't go to the trouble of finding it or applying it, a commercialized closed-source version of it works.
For that matter, with public domain software, there is *nothing* preventing an open source group from *also* picking up the software and immediately GPL'ing what they have, and then developing from there.
In other words, taxpayer produced software should be free. Really free. And that means public domain - license with no strings at all.
Yeah, I'll give you this, but really the restrictions harm nobody but greedy people
What's with this greedy people? Why do I assume that you really mean folks like me who actually have to support a family by writing code! And who could not make that money if my code had to be distributed with source, and the source had to be available for free?
In many areas, all that would mean is that other people would take my code and use it to compete with me with no recompense. An industry built this way would simply fail. Open source relies upon the good will of people to produce useful things. And it sometimes works - there are lots of fine people producing good stuff. But there are also lots of things not being produced in open source - because it isn't "cool" to do so, or it isn't as much fun. And a lot of open source is far less usable than commercial equivalents, because open source people get more plaudits (which is the coin of the realm) for writing code than for writing documentation. And it is more fun to come up with a clever application than it is to produce installation software for it that allows idiots to use it.
GPL is fine for those who want to freely give of their time. It is a charitable thing. However, as in other areas of human endeavor, charities do not supply everything needed! They are good at what they choose to be good at and in areas where they can attract interest.
A GPL economy is an imaginary economy. It assumes that everyone who writes code can afford to do it for free, or that if they choose to sell it there is nobody to come along and compete with them with their own code, reducing their income. It is a utopian concept, and like most utopias, it works best at the small scale, and fails entirely when called upon to address the real needs of real people.
Let me give a real world example. One thing I do is write code for the Health Insurance claims processing industry. How many people are willing to do this for free and GPL the results? I sure am not. If I didn't get paid for it, I wouldn't do it! If I didn't need an income, I would be happy to spend some of my time writing nifty kernel goodies in open source, or doing some other cool thing. But in the real world, somebody needs to write that health insurance software, and that somebody wants to be paid, and that payment won't happen if the code is GPL'd.
Now... imagine that the government produces some of this software. It would probably be a result of somebody's research. It would probably be ungeneralized, poorly documented and not very friendly to install. It might also have the very best algorithms for some parts of this (there really is some magic in this area).
If this is GPL'd, that software will probably never be used. Why bother? It would cost a lot to bring it up to commercial standards. And once you did, you would have to release the source for your competitors. People generally don't make investments with the intent of taking a loss! They have to recoup that investment. And they do that in many areas via exclusivity - in software, by protecting their intellectual property.
Now, in another universe, that software is truely free - it is public domain. Several companies might pick it up and incorporate it into their products. The successful ones would make it more usable, more general, better documented. etc. There might be several that would compete. The result would be a reduction overall in the cost of processing health insurance claims - a positive good. The only objection I can see martialed to this is that somebody is *gasp* making money, with their own efforts, but using somebody else's product(for which that someone else was compensated by the government).
So what's the problem?
I think a lot of GPL advocates need to grow up and recognize that it isn't a panacea, but rather one more form of restrictive license - appropriate for certain endeavors and totally unappropriate for others.
And for those who think that all source code should be freely available... well, I'll bet you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!
I argue that this is itself a strawman argument. It matters not what Microsoft does with the government funded software - what counts is what *everyone* is allowed to do with that software.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly is the only reason that they can play a lot of their predatory games. One could argue that Microsoft in particular should be denied the use of taxpayer funded software as a penalty for monopolistic abuses, or one could argument that whatever use they do make of it should be monitored for monopoly abuses. But this applies only to a monopoly, which Microsoft happens to be.
In fact, it is unfortunate that Microsoft's name is used in this argument. The licensing of government software affects anyone who may want to use it, not just one company. Anti-Microsoft arguments, however valid, really add nothing to the debate over what is the best license to use for government subsidized software.
I don't think the powers that be, namely Microsoft, believe that the individual has the right to create software, manufacture it, and then NOT COMPETE on the same terms as Microsoft does. (i.e. freely distribute it.)
Nonsense. This is not at all what they are saying. You are totally missing their point.
Microsoft is simply saying that products of government research should be free as in unrestricted as in all citizens should be able to use it the same way. If the government GPL's it's software, then it is *not free and unrestricted.* Software licenses *restrict* what you can do with software. That is one of their main purposes (the other one being liability disclaimers, etc). GPL is no different. It forces anyone using the software to GPL it.
To me, having the government GPL'ing software is an abuse of taxpayer money. Why should my government, to which I pay too much in taxes, not permit me (or Microsoft) to improve its software, and make my own choices as to how to sell the added value.
The GPL argument essentially assumes that either all people are coders, or all consumers are idiots. It assumes that improving software (which may just mean shrink-wrapping it and adding a nice installer) is valueless and that a company should not be able to keep exclusive the very work that that company paid for. It seeks to turn companies into charities... or it seeks to destroy the software business entirely (which, in fact, is what Stallman wants to do!).
Like many Slashdotters, I make my living writing and selling software. My time is worth money, and if the way to get that money is to sell my software closed source, then that is what I am going to do. You have no right to have my (or Microsoft's) source code - I created it and it is mine! That also applies if my efforts went into creating improvements in internals, functions, packaging or just marketing government funded software!
In some aspects, the previous poster is right... commodity software in some areas will eventually become free. But the reason is what he misses - the free software will exist because there is no value that can be added that requires paying people for their time. The Open Source movement has been a wonderful thing, for those people with the time and energy to contribute to it, and for the rest of us who use it. But it is not a highly general economic model.
However, if they want to take the test code the researchers built based on the papers they wrote, and slap a company logo on it and resell it to consumers, who are also taxpayers, then that *is* stealing.
No, it is not stealing. You also can take the test code and use it for free... or you can put it into a product. If you pay Microsoft for it, it is because you are too lazy (or more likely, too smart) to spend your time adapting the research code for your own use.
Microsoft in this case would add value. If they didn't, NOBODY WOULD PAY FOR THE SOFTWARE!
Stealing would be taking the code and hiding it so nobody else could use it!
Re:requisite paranoid response
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 1
Take the Keck telescope (which has adaptive optics) and put its equivalent in geosynchronous orbit, and you sould be able to image down to a few centimeters resolution (based on the Keck's resolution looking up from earth through the atmosphere).
Given the kind of money the NRO has, they just might do it (or might have done it with smaller optics). After all, the Multiple MirrorTelescope was built by the airforce, with surplus mirrors from spy satellites.
How about a bounty like Louisiana just announced on Nutria (swamp rats). You present two ears or eyeballs or... welll... from a spammer and you get a reward.
This would be much more satisfying. We could even automate it, with role playing web based games controlling real robots with real skinning knives.
I don't think this would work for long. The spammers would simply experiment to find holes in the filters, send a ton of spam, and iterate (as the holes are filled as the filter learns).
Slashdot Mirror
I should have been more specific. The spammer community has lots of money. Some spammers (one of whom I used to know) themselves have lots of money. The small scale scammers fund the R&D efforts to defeat anti-spam by purchasing spam software and services from the smarter or richer. It is that economy, not the idiot in the work-at-home pyramid scheme, that I was referring to.
Also, there is a huge amount of money in internet pornography, and there seems to be a lot of spam in that department too.
Overall, adequate money to keep a number of clever programmers at working generating counter-counter-measures.
I suspect Bayesian filter will only work for a while. Spammers have a lot of money, and they can use it to hire a lot of creativity. If Bayesian filters get very popular, spammers will engage in counter-counter measures, just like a lot of them have already done to other techniques (return address filtering, IP filtering, and these days, simple keyword filtering).
I would bet that it is relatively easy to make a bit of spam that would pass most peoples' Bayesian filters... since most people are fairly alike in their email - or at least there are large subsets worth going after.
Ultimately it will be sort of a Turing challenge - my spam filter vs. your spam trying to emulate any person (not every person) that I might ever want to get email from. Doesn't sound too hard to me!
As many have pointed out, the real problem with Spam is that it as is an economic activity where people other than the spammer pay most of the costs (externalitites). The cost of mass email is only going to get cheaper unless some pretty stern measures are taken. I like Lessig's approach. Make the bastards pay. They are stealing resources!
Of course, we should do the same thing to telephone spammers, but so far nothing has been done there. It is a lot easier to propose legislation than to get it passed.
BTW... I got one of those TeleZapper things (disclaimer: I have not finanical interest in the product). It really does reduce telephone spam. Unfortunately, like most technological solutions, it also has false positives. When the library computer calls up to let me know a book is available, TeleZapper freaks it out before it delivers a message (I know this from watching caller ID). [another aside, the Phoenix, Arizona public library is so primitive that it still can't send you *email* notifications!]
Well, I do like the phrase "clue-by-four."
Other than that... this is a waste of time.
I'm only going to beat a small amount of this dead horse.
LOTS of people on slashdot have argued that all software should be GPL'ed, and that is indeed the ideology of a lot of the Free Software movement. I normally read Slashdot with a filter of 4, and I see that point of view every time anything close to the issue comes up! If this thread doesn't have any (and I'm not gonna bother to look), it is because they all went beddy-bye early.
Software produced by the government means software that is written by actual employees of the federal government, during work hours, as part of their job. Such software cannot be copyrighted; it is public domain. [cornell.edu]
Your quote actually establishes my point precisely. You are quoting US Code, which indeed is frequently modified by Congress (in fact, that is what we mean by passing a law!). Thus such software could very easily be released GPL (or proprietary or anything else) if Congress were pressured to do so.
And as far as Congress amending the constitution, again, THEY CANNOT DO SO. They can propose an amendment (your quote again). Beyond that, it is another process (thank goodness!).
Thus, some people argue that such software should at the very least have its source available for inspection, either by government employees who would not be allowed to divulge the contents of the source they read, or by members of the public, or whatever. I'm not going into that issue;
Yes, now that we are getting into a tiny little piece of the idea space under discussion, you are right that some people think that the government should divulge all source that they commission. Those people are *seriously* misguided.(Do they really think that all NSA classified code is coded by government employees? How about the guidance code for the Patriot PAC-3 missile. Most highly secret code used by the government is produced by contractors - a couple of whom I worked for in the distant past - and obviously that code shouldn't be released to the public domain! Security through obscurity in fact is very important in these sorts of cases. If you don't know the exact algorithms used in weapons system, it is much harder to spoof or jam them, for example.
So we have moved into an even tinier piece... contracted code (not written by government employees) who are not writing classified stuff. Do you really think that all the posts on Slashdot about this issue relate only to that?
Even in that area, I will only argue that the source should be public domain, not GPL. In other words, most of the arguments of mine that you took such offense too do not relate to the subset of the tiny subset of discussion space in this thread!
Puleez
You certainly raise a more interesting and valid argument for open source than I have seen so far in this discussion, so I will comment on that.
First, a comment. I do not assume a perfect free market. Markets are in general the best known economic decision mechanism, but they aren't perfect. Microsoft is a good example - it has a monopoly. Many free market people (including far too many of my ideological comrades in conservatives) seem to have almost a religious belief in the power of the market to always produce the right result, and thus make ignorant arguments about the Microsoft case (fortunately Judge Bork is much smarter in his arguments).
I have another essay in that blog about the failure of the free market in health insurance... and how conservatives are wrong in most of their arguments. So no, my arguments make no utopian free market assumption. In cases given, the assumption is valid. In other cases, it may not be.
What I do dislike is government interaction where it is not totally necessary. Government can only operate through the implied use of deadly force (at the extreme) and thus has vast powers that should be used very rarely. Furthermore, government mandates are usually worse than the market - government tends to be stupid, slow moving, extremely bureaucratic, and often corrupt (I suspect that you in particular would enjoy my quasi-humorous essay on the subject of bureaucracies).
Now to address your point about open source proving code ownership, and that being pro-capitalist. I believe that in balance, this point fails. The reason is that while open source allows one to prove code genesis, the only value of this is to prevent criminal theft of trade secrets. But it the process it decapitalizes the code as an asset, which I think is an even worse outcome. There are other (admittedly imperfect) remedies for trade secret theft, but any forced decapitalization of code is disastrous.
In the case of privately developed software, the owners of that software can *choose* whether to let open source or closed source protect their interest in the software, and I think that is a maximal freedom approach. IOW, if you believe that *your* commercial or personal interests are best served by GPL'ing your code... go for it! I have no problem with that. If you don't, don't. You may want to BSD it. More likely, you will keep it as a trade secret.
Since government produced (or commissioned) software is the main subject of this discussion in Slashdot, I have *no objection* to anyone taking *that* software, putting a different name and a flashy package on it, and selling it for a zillion dollars. Or, more accurately, I don't like people doing that but I don't think it appropriate to sacrifice anybody's freedoms to stop them. Their behavior may be immoral but that's their problem, not ours.
Thus I think government produced software should, in general, be released to the *public domain*, not GPL or BSD or any other non-public domain license. The government's interest in the software ends at that point. Then, whatever happens to that software is up to whatever any person or group (including corporations) wants to do with *their copy* of it. Nothing in public domain release prevents the software from remaining open source, or from GPL or BSD or other trees being derived from it. Only modified versions of the software can be closed source, because the original source is freely available from the government or archives.
I also believe the government should be allowed, with suitable oversight (this is a whole discussion in itself - how to do that with minimal corruption), to contract for closed source or even proprietary software.
Several decades ago I worked for a military consulting house and we were paid by the government to develop closed source software for them. They got the benefit of cheaper software and our expertise, and we got an asset that kept our tiny consulting company alive.
I don't thing my example should be the rule, but I do think it should be totally prohibited (perhaps, again, with suitable oversight).
And Congress could even pass a Constitutional amendment which would allow the government to retain copyright on works it produces
Not true. Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution.
Actually, I don't know how you speak for all of Slashdot or FSF about the difference between government produced and government commissioned software. Some proof would be interesting.
But what is the theoretical difference of whether the software came from a government employee, or someone or some organization that produced it on behalf of the government? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the government can negotiate a reduced cost in return for changes in the intellectual property value of the software (I once worked on a program where exactly that happened).
So do you disapprove of the government saving taxpayer money if it results in less free software? If so, why?
Your #2 point is the very first time that this issue has been raised in this thread. So please stop attacking me for arguing against a wider issue. Now that *you* have made clear the narrow range of your issue, I have responded (above) to that. So can we discuss that personally and stop psychoanalyzing my motices?
No, you don't sacrifice the code that is in fact written, because THAT CODE IS ALREADY FREE TO EVERYONE! It really is that damn simple!
I do not assume that intellectual property must follow the rules of physical property. Rather, I reason that it must have some property value (and in the US the Constitution enshrines that principle - which is why it calls for the establishment of Patents and Copyrights - so don't argue with me - amend the constitution).
Code, for the most part, is not ideas. It is a tedious collection of detailed insructions to a machine. In that sense, it is not a mathematical idea (the concept of which prevented code patents for many years) but rather an expression of an algorithm - which is most similar to music or writing.
And again, you seem to be assuming the allowing public domain software to be used in proprietary, closed source system, to cause that public domain software to vanish. That is UTTER NONSENSE. You, yourself, have the right to take very piece of public domain software ever written and to be written to be released under a GPL issued by you, if that would make you feel better!
Admit it! Your real objection is that you don't like not having access to source code (neither do I). The rest of your argument (where it isn't just totally contrary to the *facts*) is mostly a rationalization for that view.
There are lots of choices that are made for consumers by manufacturers. A hardware vendor may choose to preload an OS if that is their strategy.
However, you are really addressing Microsoft, which as I have said is a special case. It is simply not relevant to the issue of whether the government should restrict its citizens from using government developed software in a private product.
Your car question puzzles me. It is *my* argument, so why do you assert it?
No, I was selling radio control systems. The primary added value was the software, which I wrote. I was the efficient producer of that software - anyone can make the hardware, but I made the software back when it was early in the technology cycle for that environment.
As far as demanding control over my customers... give me a break! If I sell you a little plastic widget, you can do whatever you want with it. But you have no rights to the injection mold that went into building it. Software source is the injection mold. Binary software is the widget. Please explain why software is different??? Oh year, because you can cheaply duplicate the source - but ONLY if you can get hold of it - which is exactly why people need to keep it proprietary.
Economics is about the management of goods and labor, and ultimately about capital and more abstract things. You need to understand the concept of capital. Software *source* is indeed capital. It is tangible and very rare. The fact that it can be *stolen* and then duplicated is irrelevant. You argue that software isn't scarce. If you believe that, try duplicating my controller software. Good luck! The reason you will have trouble doing so is that *I* have the source code and you don't, and the binaries are also hard to duplicate because they are burnt into EEPROM's inside of secured microcontrollers.
As far as freedom, I don't include the right to deprive others of their freedom. They already have their freedoms. When I write software, they don't suddenly acquire *more* freedoms unless I give it to them. YOU are the one who is talking about removing freedom: my freedom to create things and not have someone else reduce its value by copying it. If I *choose* to release it with GPL, that is *my* free choice. It is not your free choice to force me to release it that way!
Nobody is forced to buy my non-GPL software. That is their freedom. My freedom is my right to release it under whatever license terms I want (within the law).
GPL does NOT guarantee continued access for all citizens any more than BSD or public domain does. The reason is that under GPL, a lot of code that would have gotten written will not be. It is really that simple.
Public Domain guarantees continued access for all citizens to the products of the government. The citizens don't have any inherent rights to the products of private individuals, even if those individuals used government effort as a starting point.
After all, most of our technology ultimately derives from government sponsored research. This is true in biotech, silicontech, spacetech, etc. Why do we want to pick out software as the only technology where we restrict the rights of what citizens can do with it?
See here for a more detailed discussion.
Oh, BTW, as a real programmer for over 35 years, I can tell you that *not all code rots.*
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it.
(apologies... I hit submit when I meant to hit preview, and the previous response was incorrectly formatted - so here it is again):
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it.
My argument, and Microsoft's, is against those who would *force* the government into using GPL for all of its software. And don't kid yourself, if Congress wanted to, it could indeed make government software into GPL instead of public domain - you won't find anything in the US Constitution that prevents that, and the US isn't the only country in the world. My secondary discussion is an attempt to educate the Free Software utopians in the futility of their ultimate goals.
If you read my postings more carefully (and I suggest you take a look at my more detailed my recent blog posting [tinyvital.com]), you would see that this is not the simple issue you assert I am arguing.
As far as "The GPL scares me because it threatens what I do for a living" - thanks for trolling by putting BS words into my mouth (NOT!)! I was simply pointing out (as you in fact do also) that the GPL, if used universally, simply won't work, and that forcing someone to give away their software is wrong. Oh, and I'm really not worried about this, because I expect that there will be proprietary software far into the future, as nobody has yet put forth any credible alternative scenario (short of global catastrophe or true AI). I'm not afraid - you just don't read carefully.
If I have any fear for my profession, it is that cheap foreign labor will take my job - but as long as that happens through fair competition, there is nothing inherently wrong with that in spite of whatever impact it might have on me. And, of course, it isn't germain to this issue.
Microsoft attacks GPL on several fronts. The main issue of interest has to do with attacks which actually affect laws - and this is where Microsoft is *defending* our freedoms, for their own private gain, of course. Is that such a hard concept.
I'm sorry, but YOU are not arguing against my point, you are arguing around it.
My argument, and Microsoft's, is against those who would *force* the government into using GPL for all of its software. And don't kid yourself, if Congress wanted to, it could indeed make government software into GPL instead of public domain - you won't find anything in the US Constitution that prevents that, and the US isn't the only country in the world. My secondary discussion is an attempt to educate the Free Software utopians in the futility of their ultimate goals.
If you read my postings more carefully (and I suggest you take a look at my more detailed my recent blog posting), you would see that this is not the simple issue you assert I am arguing.
As far as "The GPL scares me because it threatens what I do for a living" - thanks for trolling by putting BS words into my mouth (NOT!)! I was simply pointing out (as you in fact do also) that the GPL, if used universally, simply won't work, and that forcing someone to give away their software is wrong. Oh, and I'm really not worried about this, because I expect that there will be proprietary software far into the future, as nobody has yet put forth any credible alternative scenario (short of global catastrophe or true AI). I'm not afraid - you just don't read carefully.
If I have any fear for my profession, it is that cheap foreign labor will take my job - but as long as that happens through fair competition, there is nothing inherently wrong with that in spite of whatever impact it might have on me. And, of course, it isn't germain to this issue.
Microsoft attacks GPL on several fronts. The main issue of interest has to do with attacks which actually affect laws - and this is where Microsoft is *defending* our freedoms, for their own private gain, of course. Is that such a hard concept.
All excellent points. When you can devise rules (as you did) to achieve anti-monopolistic results in a pro-active manner, you have done well!
However, in the case of Microsoft, that didn't happen. In fact, I have often argued that Microsoft owns a natural monopoly (using the economic sense of the term) and thus a desktop operating system monopoly would have originated with or without Microsoft. However, once such a monopoly has arisen, one needs to take measures to minimize the damage that may result as the company uses monopoly rents to unfairly compete in other markets.
BTW... I wrote a longer (and more trollish) discussion of the Free Software movement and put it on my blog for those who are interested.
Remember I am not arguing against GPL in general, but rather against forcing publicly developed software to be licensed as GPL.
Aha. But can't you see that this situation is *worse* than the GPL one? Imagine there is a mediocre health care claims processing application out there. Then some insurance company picks it up and modifies it. They turn it into a great application, but one that only processes insurance claims for their company. They then turn around and release that software. Now, sure, there is a better claims processing software, but its locked into a particular company.
But your argument sets up a straw man. It assumes that only one company can take the free, but mediocre software and improve and sell it. If there is a big enough market to justify investing in the software, then other companies will also come in and either use the free software or write proprietary closed-source software. If there is not a big enough market, then your examples actually shows the good side of non-GPL - it shows that someone will at least provide good claims processing software, but you have to pay for it.
This is better than just having the mediocre software out there, since it adds choices: the mediocre software is STILL THERE, and now there is a better, but more costly proprietary choice also!
BTW... I wrote a longer (and more trollish) discussion of this, which addresses your other issues in more detail, and put it on my blog for those who are interested.
Counterargument: Why should your government, to which you pay too much in taxes, permit anyone ever to take the fruits of this work and close it, taking it away from you?
This is not a counterargument to the issue of public domain. My government should *not* permit anyone to take the fruits of this work and close it (unless that was in the original contract and resulted in reduced costs to the government).
But releasing it public domain means it is *not* closed. Nobody can close *it*.
Sure, someone can take it, re-release it under a closed license, and *claim* they have closed it, but they haven't, because the original work is OBVIOUSLY STILL AVAILABLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Geez!
And is there nothing wrong with supporting a family selling copies? Is code a special kind of beast where it is okay to sell the original but not the copy?
Work for hire is one mode that programmers may want. But they may also want to be able to invest their *sweat equity* (capital) into their code, and then get a *return on their investment.*
At one time, I had a business which made small hardware widgets (ham radio repeater controllers with embedded processor). The key proprietary component in this was the software. Anyone could copy the hardware and compete with me, but it took real, rare skills and real cost (which I had already invested via my time) to produce that software. I was not about, and would never, give away that competitive edge for some GPL utopia. In that case, others would simply take my work, dupe my circuit boards, and hit the market with an unfair capital advantage over me - the creator.
Your argument is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-freedom. The only people who have freedom in this case are those who *chose* to GPL their *own* (not taxpayer supported) and those who take that code under the GPL license.
Those who take the code may or may not contribute to the GPL process. They may simply take it parasitically (as many of us do when we use Linux but don't contribute to the Linux project). In the case of Linux, that is okay - because it is expressly in the interest of those who contribute to Linux. If it wasn't, they'd be fools to GPL it!
Your doctor example has nothing to do with software, except in the case of a consultant working for a client. So let's take the latter case... assume I am a consultant producing code for someone (work for hire). I would have no right to withhold it the source from my client (unless that was in the contract, which in fact is not at all unusual). But somebody would have to GPL the software. This simply pushes the capital expenditure burden from me to them, but the economic effect hits me as well as them - if they cannot operate economically in a closed-source, no-piracy mode, then they won't pay me. And for most software, this is a reality.
Utopianism is a good way to come up with creative ideas, but unfortunately (as in this case) it always results in overapplication and nonutopian results. For some of the consequences of utopianism, see my blog my blog.
This would be fine if all situations were guaranteed to be symmetric. But that is very unlikely! Much more likely is I spend years (or my customer spends hundreds of thousands of dollars) developing the code, and then someone else simply takes it - perhaps makes a cosmetic mod - and then is in competition with me. However, they have the hundreds of thousands that *they&* didn't spend on sofware available to their marketing and support efforts. This gives them an advantage of me!
In other words, in general GPL favors the pirate over the originator. GPL only works for *voluntary* effort or in conjunction with other sources of profit (Service Contracts, Training, Hardware).
I notice that you do not attack IBM for using GPL'd UNIX to increase their *hardware profits (others in this thread have noted this). In fact, on Slashdot there is generally great cheering (which I agree with) when another hardware manufacturer adapts an open source solution.
Another way of saying this is that GPL results in programmers being paid nothing to enrich hardware makers, or software companies going bankrupt while enriching the hardware makers.
Selective condemnation is an interesting attribute of the same people who usually favor utopian solutions (for a related discussion, see
www.tinyvital.com/blog and www.tinyvital.com/PCD.htm).
GPL *removes* the ability to compete over software features. With GPL everyone can take advantage of the functionality created by anybody. Thus it *ends* competition, leaving the only competition to be in the areas of servicing and marketing. This naturally benefits the large companies over the small, as the large can afford better marketing.
In such a world, software innovation will die!
But why not allow the consumers to fork over cash for no added benefit? Are you their keeper? I asserted earlier that the GPL license assumes that consumers are dumb. This seems to prove the case.
If it is bundled with some other product, so what? What is wrong with this?
As far as wilful misrepresentation, it only works if the customer is dumb, or if the issue is of insufficient importance to matter.
Or it may be that the consumer is unaware of the free software. In that case, the added value produced by the company is the advertising that resulted in the purchase of the software.
So again, I do not see anything wrong being done with the government produced software. It is *still* available to anyone that wants it. For those who don't go to the trouble of finding it or applying it, a commercialized closed-source version of it works.
For that matter, with public domain software, there is *nothing* preventing an open source group from *also* picking up the software and immediately GPL'ing what they have, and then developing from there.
In other words, taxpayer produced software should be free. Really free. And that means public domain - license with no strings at all.
Yeah, I'll give you this, but really the restrictions harm nobody but greedy people
What's with this greedy people? Why do I assume that you really mean folks like me who actually have to support a family by writing code! And who could not make that money if my code had to be distributed with source, and the source had to be available for free?
In many areas, all that would mean is that other people would take my code and use it to compete with me with no recompense. An industry built this way would simply fail. Open source relies upon the good will of people to produce useful things. And it sometimes works - there are lots of fine people producing good stuff. But there are also lots of things not being produced in open source - because it isn't "cool" to do so, or it isn't as much fun. And a lot of open source is far less usable than commercial equivalents, because open source people get more plaudits (which is the coin of the realm) for writing code than for writing documentation. And it is more fun to come up with a clever application than it is to produce installation software for it that allows idiots to use it.
GPL is fine for those who want to freely give of their time. It is a charitable thing. However, as in other areas of human endeavor, charities do not supply everything needed! They are good at what they choose to be good at and in areas where they can attract interest.
A GPL economy is an imaginary economy. It assumes that everyone who writes code can afford to do it for free, or that if they choose to sell it there is nobody to come along and compete with them with their own code, reducing their income. It is a utopian concept, and like most utopias, it works best at the small scale, and fails entirely when called upon to address the real needs of real people.
Let me give a real world example. One thing I do is write code for the Health Insurance claims processing industry. How many people are willing to do this for free and GPL the results? I sure am not. If I didn't get paid for it, I wouldn't do it! If I didn't need an income, I would be happy to spend some of my time writing nifty kernel goodies in open source, or doing some other cool thing. But in the real world, somebody needs to write that health insurance software, and that somebody wants to be paid, and that payment won't happen if the code is GPL'd.
Now... imagine that the government produces some of this software. It would probably be a result of somebody's research. It would probably be ungeneralized, poorly documented and not very friendly to install. It might also have the very best algorithms for some parts of this (there really is some magic in this area).
If this is GPL'd, that software will probably never be used. Why bother? It would cost a lot to bring it up to commercial standards. And once you did, you would have to release the source for your competitors. People generally don't make investments with the intent of taking a loss! They have to recoup that investment. And they do that in many areas via exclusivity - in software, by protecting their intellectual property.
Now, in another universe, that software is truely free - it is public domain. Several companies might pick it up and incorporate it into their products. The successful ones would make it more usable, more general, better documented. etc. There might be several that would compete. The result would be a reduction overall in the cost of processing health insurance claims - a positive good. The only objection I can see martialed to this is that somebody is *gasp* making money, with their own efforts, but using somebody else's product(for which that someone else was compensated by the government).
So what's the problem?
I think a lot of GPL advocates need to grow up and recognize that it isn't a panacea, but rather one more form of restrictive license - appropriate for certain endeavors and totally unappropriate for others.
And for those who think that all source code should be freely available... well, I'll bet you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!
I argue that this is itself a strawman argument. It matters not what Microsoft does with the government funded software - what counts is what *everyone* is allowed to do with that software.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly is the only reason that they can play a lot of their predatory games. One could argue that Microsoft in particular should be denied the use of taxpayer funded software as a penalty for monopolistic abuses, or one could argument that whatever use they do make of it should be monitored for monopoly abuses. But this applies only to a monopoly, which Microsoft happens to be.
In fact, it is unfortunate that Microsoft's name is used in this argument. The licensing of government software affects anyone who may want to use it, not just one company. Anti-Microsoft arguments, however valid, really add nothing to the debate over what is the best license to use for government subsidized software.
Whew...
I don't think the powers that be, namely Microsoft, believe that the individual has the right to create software, manufacture it, and then NOT COMPETE on the same terms as Microsoft does.
(i.e. freely distribute it.)
Nonsense. This is not at all what they are saying. You are totally missing their point.
Microsoft is simply saying that products of government research should be free as in unrestricted as in all citizens should be able to use it the same way. If the government GPL's it's software, then it is *not free and unrestricted.* Software licenses *restrict* what you can do with software. That is one of their main purposes (the other one being liability disclaimers, etc). GPL is no different. It forces anyone using the software to GPL it.
To me, having the government GPL'ing software is an abuse of taxpayer money. Why should my government, to which I pay too much in taxes, not permit me (or Microsoft) to improve its software, and make my own choices as to how to sell the added value.
The GPL argument essentially assumes that either all people are coders, or all consumers are idiots. It assumes that improving software (which may just mean shrink-wrapping it and adding a nice installer) is valueless and that a company should not be able to keep exclusive the very work that that company paid for. It seeks to turn companies into charities... or it seeks to destroy the software business entirely (which, in fact, is what Stallman wants to do!).
Like many Slashdotters, I make my living writing and selling software. My time is worth money, and if the way to get that money is to sell my software closed source, then that is what I am going to do. You have no right to have my (or Microsoft's) source code - I created it and it is mine! That also applies if my efforts went into creating improvements in internals, functions, packaging or just marketing government funded software!
In some aspects, the previous poster is right... commodity software in some areas will eventually become free. But the reason is what he misses - the free software will exist because there is no value that can be added that requires paying people for their time. The Open Source movement has been a wonderful thing, for those people with the time and energy to contribute to it, and for the rest of us who use it. But it is not a highly general economic model.
However, if they want to take the test code the researchers built based on the papers they wrote, and slap a company logo on it and resell it to consumers, who are also taxpayers, then that *is* stealing.
No, it is not stealing. You also can take the test code and use it for free... or you can put it into a product. If you pay Microsoft for it, it is because you are too lazy (or more likely, too smart) to spend your time adapting the research code for your own use.
Microsoft in this case would add value. If they didn't, NOBODY WOULD PAY FOR THE SOFTWARE!
Stealing would be taking the code and hiding it so nobody else could use it!
Take the Keck telescope (which has adaptive optics) and put its equivalent in geosynchronous orbit, and you sould be able to image down to a few centimeters resolution (based on the Keck's resolution looking up from earth through the atmosphere).
Given the kind of money the NRO has, they just might do it (or might have done it with smaller optics). After all, the Multiple MirrorTelescope was built by the airforce, with surplus mirrors from spy satellites.
How about a bounty like Louisiana just announced on Nutria (swamp rats). You present two ears or eyeballs or... welll... from a spammer and you get a reward.
This would be much more satisfying. We could even automate it, with role playing web based games controlling real robots with real skinning knives.
I can't wait!
I don't think this would work for long. The spammers would simply experiment to find holes in the filters, send a ton of spam, and iterate (as the holes are filled as the filter learns).