Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:12:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in (Rahul Siddharthan) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), j_mckitrick@bigfoot.com (J McKitrick), brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <200003211912.MAA02060@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003180950460.6691-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> from "Rahul Siddharthan" at Mar 18, 2000 10:13:42 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> However, I think you left out something else (I'm not being > categorical on this, since I'm not in the computer business): as > I understand it, the great majority of software engineers (I once > heard a figure of 90%, at least in India) are into custom-written > software, not packaged stuff like Oracle. The software firms are > contracted by companies to write this, and it is not distributed > but used only under the company's own roof for its own purposes. > In that case the licence is really irrelevant; the GPL doesn't > force anyone to redistribute the code. If I, as an employee or former employee, who has used the software, demand source code, it must be given to me, up to two years since my last use of the software. > Another money-making scheme, directly off the GPL, is what Peter > Deutsch did for Ghostscript (though this is not something > Stallman approved of): he has three licensing schemes, the GPL > for year-old software, a very restrictive "free licence" for the > latest version, and a commercial licence. This only works if all code submitted back is signed over to the project, so that it can be licensed under the rights. Otherwise, the license which must be used on the integrated code is the license from which the derivative work was prepared. If someone used the restricted Free licensed version to prepare patches, unless rights to those patches are signed back over to Peter, then he can only distribute them under the license that they were derived under. > The interview says that he made enough money to retire on. But > I'm not very clear what advantage Deutsch would have gained if he > had chosen the BSD licence for Ghostscript. Certainly, the general business distaste for using the GPL on their own intellectual property contributed to his ability to make money. That's really not the point. The point is the logical economic situation, should all code become GPL'ed code. > My intent is not to start a GPL/BSD flamewar. I'm only saying the > GPL thing is not as black as it is painted out to be. Also, it's > not only software, but in the age of quick and easy digital > copying, the whole copyright scheme has to be rethought. I agree that intellectual property law needs to change; however, I do not agree with Stallman that the idea of intellectual property as institutionalised in law should therefore be abolished. > The current situation, of further and stricter controls on digital > copying being introduced every year, will work only in a police > state. This is more a RIA thing than anything else. It's driven by the recording industry, who have little understanding for technology (witness the fact that an image copy of any "encrypted" DVD will work just as well as the original). > Stallman's ideas are one possible answer for software, > which few people will accept, but his vocalness means people at > least start thinking about the issue instead of pretending it > doesn't exist. For music/creative writing/etc, Stallman himself > agrees that a GPL-style copyleft would not be a good idea. We can think about the answer, but we must remember that the intent of Copyright and Patent law, at least in the U.S., was to promote progress in the arts and sciences by securing rights for authors and inventors. Most of the recent changes in U.S. patent law have been driven by W.I.P.O.; for example, the change in patents from "14 years from date of issue" to "20 years from date of filing" was driven by an E.U. desire to get rid of the possibility of "submerged patents". Software should have seperate rules from the rest of Copyright and Patent law, but so long as there is a visable lunitic fringe that corrects "we need copyright and patent reform in software" by saying "what he really means is that we need to abolish copyright and patent protection for software", no progress will be possible. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003211912.MAA02060>