John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:19:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>CEO Of Open-Source Software Vendor SugarCRM Speaks Out
>>
>>| ...we don't believe in patents. We believe they are tools to stop
>>| innovation. Our position is patent law should be rewritten as it
>>| pertains to software.
>
> It should NOT be rewritten..it should be abolished..period.
Rewritten's no problem, all you do is rewrite to require that source code be
made available to recipients of the software when it's distributed, along
the lines of the present-day GPL, whether you call it patent or copyright
or whatever. If we're rewriting, there's no need to think small about it
and work within the limitations of the existing law :-)
Combined with reasonable durations on any monopoly privilege to copy, use,
or redistribute that source code, say 7 years rather than 70 years of
copyright, and a lot of my 'in principle' objections to proprietary
software would disappear - for example, it wouldn't be closed-source any
more, since that would be illegal, so anyone could audit the code they were
using to their heart's content.
Commercial software producers would have a period of legal protection to
make money from their innovation but tempered with the incentive to produce
further innovation within a few years before their earlier source code
passed into the public domain, and became free to use for anyone, including
GPL projects. Hobbyists and non-commercial users would be pretty much able
to do what they wanted with it privately from day one, if not to distribute
it while it was still protected.
Also, that would go the other way, weakening the GPL to an extent, since it
would be equally unnecessary to agree to the GPL to make use of open
software developed several years ago - so a commercial firm would be able
to take older open-source development, and include it with whatever
enhancements they could come up with in proprietary products, with the quid
pro quo being that we'd be able to see the source code for it and in a few
years time we'd be able to incorporate their enhancements also in free
software.
So while it's true that ever-strengthening copyright and IP law can actually
strengthen the teeth of the GPL, on the other hand I don't necessarily mind
weakening those teeth provided it goes both ways - and open source software
is moving so fast (just look at Ubuntu where every six months brings a new
release that seems to have leapt forward, and they're not unusual in the
open-source world), so I'm convinced open-source can innovate fast enough
to stay ahead of the curve, and if there's money to be made I'm quite sure
commercial firms will be formed that can do the same.
--
JPB
|
|
