[plug] Why not GPL it ? [was Intellectual Property]

[Bret Busby]

Michael Hunt wrote:
> 
> > At 08:54 PM 2/8/2000 +0800, you wrote:

<snip>

> Ok so shouldn't the strategy be that we write the software under an Open
> Source style licence so that the intellectual property issue becomes a non
> issue. You then get to support a brilliant product by the very nature that
> Open Source is so much better than a closed source solution could ever
> attempt to be !!!
> 
> Or hasn't the open source software mentality really hit us and we are just
> using Linux because its free (and everyone likes a free beer !!!!)
> 
> I am playing the Devils advocate here and this is not to flame anyone about
> the pros or cons of open source/closed source. I am interested in hearing
> weather the "professional" programmers on this list (ok we define
> professional here as being paid just like pro golf and amateur golf), think
> about the whole issue with regards to this issue. Do you argue the pros and
> cons of open source v's closed with potential clients, or d you just accept
> a closed source solution in return for cash (i.e sell your soul *grin*),
> Please remember no disrespect meant here and I hope none will be taken
> 
> (This post has made the original post somewhat irrelevant by totally
> changing the topic if I remember correctly. My apologies but I think the
> question may get a better answer if we discuss some of these other issues).
> 
> 

We have developed software, on contract, but, not on the Linux OS
platform.

In answer to the above, I reiterate (without restating what I have
previously said on the subject, in the context of the integrity of
software developed for a particular client, and, the responsibility, in
other words, liability, of the contractor, for any defects that are
found in the software developed for the client (especially where the
software has been modified by a party other than the contractor).

I think it goes to the issue of for whom the software is developed.

Where software is developed, on a paid contract basis, for a particular
client, or, where software is sold by a software developer, then, I
think that restricting the rights, by contract, is appropriate.

On the other hand, where software is developed, for the sake of
development, as I understand open source software to be (especially from
my understanding of the start of the development of Linux), and,
disclaimers are involved, to the extent that the developers assume no
responsibility whatsoever, from any problems that arise from using the
software (which disclaimers, from what I understand, are overridden by
circumstances where the software is programmed to do nasty things, like
viruses, trojan horse stuff, and hacking software, etc), I believe that
the restriction of rights is different, and that it should be based, as
it is, if my understanding is correct, on the simple premises as, for
example, that a person further down the track cannot claim the
development work that someone has done before them, on something that
they have, or, have modified, as their own work, and, where software is
provided, by agreement, with the source code, then any modifier of the
software is also required to pass on the complete source code, including
the source code of their modifications.

As to the issue of paying for software, or not paying for software; I
tend to agree with the principle that someone once stated; if a person
is a student, or, is otherwise learning about the software, then, they
should not be required to pay for the software. When the person can
afford to pay for the software, they then go and buy a copy. If the
person (or party (and, not as in the Party Party Party of politics) ) is
using the software in a business, or otherwise commercially, to make
money from the software, then it is reasonable to expect the party to
pay for the software.

As an example, if I use PostGreSQL and PHP, to learn how to use them to
develop applications, then I believe that unpaid use of them is
acceptable. However, if I develop and sell applications that are
developed using them, then I believe that it is reasonable to be
expected to pay for that use (buying the software).

Similarly with Linux and Apache; if I use them at home, and play with
them, learning their use, and, using them for home use, then I think
that the unpaid use of them is okay, but, if an ISP uses them to make
money from other people, using them as their Internet platform, then I
think that it is reasonable for the ISP to be expected to pay for that
use.

I suppose that the grey area, in this policy, is, when a person uses the
software at home, not for the purpose of learning the software, but,
using the software for personal use.

I think, from memory, Star Division had a reasonable policy; if the
software was being used for private use, it was free, with no official
support, and, if it was used for business, paid licences were expected
to be purchased, and paid support was available (supposedly), and,
buying the commercial licence, allowed the software to be used at home,
for personal use, for free.

Just out of interest, when we obtained Linux, at first, we got "free"
copies; from magazines/books that we bought. That was RH 5.2, which is
till installed on my computer. That gave us an opportunity to learn a
little about it. When it got to RH 6, we bought an official boxed set
(it was well and truly worth the price). We have since got magazine
copies of RH 6.1 and 6.2 (which we haven't as yet installed). I am aware
of the price for Corel WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux, which includes
the Corel Linux, of $279, which, given the prices of MS OS's, and, MS
Office, appears to be well worth it, depending on how good the software
is. From what I understand, with the Corel Linux being based on Debian
Linux, the upgrading and adding packages, may make it even more
worthwhile.

However, from what I understand, the bigger commercial Linux
distributors appear to be including less in their commercial products,
and, charging more. That goes to the third party applications, and, the
uses to which the commercial packages can be put. For example, when we
got the RH6 boxed set, it could be installed as a workstation or server.
It had a disk of third-party applications. From what I understand, now,
a person buys a workstation version, or a server version, or an
enterprise version, when, previously, all were included in the one
package. Also, the third party applications are missing from the base
version, and the details of the applications included in the "Deluxe
Edition" are not published on the RH website (well, I couldn't easily
find them), and, the applications, and some details of the applications,
that came with RH Linux, were, in the past, listed in the website, for
previous versions. TurboLinux has a workstation version, a server
version, and a cluster version. It all seems to be going the way of MS,
and the general commercial philosophy; pay more for less.

One important consideration, in all of this, apart from the aspect of
whether a person is bludging, by using the software that someone has
spent much time developing, for free, is the aspect that, from my
understanding of the open source aspect, is that the software is being
debugged, and, developed, for free, when it is open source, so, it
involves trade-offs.

So, for your discussion that you want, I suggest that there are many
considerations.
-- 

Bret Busby

......................................