Re: [circle] GPL Violation - no I wont

[David Irvine]

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 14:11 +1100, Jiri Baum wrote:
[snip]
> > You see I feel theres got to be a middle ground between the GPL and
> > closed licenses that works better.
>
> Possibly, but nobody's found it yet. So far, all known methods for 
> distributing payment for programming entail such distortions of the 
> programming process that the result is worse than in the GPL model.
>
> The option you suggested - initially closed, later open - has been tried, 
> notably by ghostscript, and is included in the above analysis.
>
> > Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time to
> > time 
>
> Cite?
Well I am Scottish and many things have come from here
TV
Electromagnetic Theory
Telephone (well he was Scottish)
 and many more very innovative ideas, but all commercially backed to a degree. Quite well to with the exception of the Bell phone and perhaps the James Watt Steam engine (who went very commercial and became a problem) many others did so with grants, commercial companies paying for such and got the ideas theories out there in the wild and used by many for the good of us all. This is true of another middle ground Scott and the development of Penicillin.

Whats this poorly represents is that these innovative ideas which were created by folk working full time and with no other distractions (i.e through the night as I do) and they were very worthwhile.

Then I put  it back to you to tell me of software innovation where people can be focused on it full time, create a new concept (has to be a good one though) and survive whilst doing it. I am not talking of University students (lots of good stuff comes from projects there). 

I really feel there is a case for allowing this in a properly run society (which is what OSS is attempting to do) and allowing innovation from many sources. 


e.g suppose I created a system where with a piece of software all operating systems and software all of a sudden interacted, spoke and listened to humans and synced data, became your phone etc. or something better

This would not be innovative but perhaps very useful. If doing so involved the creation of something very innovative as an enabler  to this technology. If creating such took 2 years of solid time and effort.  Remembering this module is very innovative - not technically demanding but totally mindblowing in it's simplicity.

So what happens - you get some pay somehow for creating it (probably loosing rights to it, to a commercial beast) or borrow money to survive whilst doing so. I suggest the latter 

OR you could bang your idea on sourceforge/savannah  or similar and publish your idea (not code yet). 

Guess what it is good - so good in fact that MS or somebody simply instruct a small team to create it (not technically demanding but innovative). They Alter a bit or two and (yes I know about prior publishing etc.) patent it in it's slightly changed way OR they don't bother they simply add it to windows machines as a free thing but don't allow it to work with other OS's (as if they would eh). 

You then plod on and x years later complete in your spare time with others your version, MS changes a bit of theirs yours is innoperable and innovation stifiling goes on - you've got a system that will work in *nix and maybe MAC. Nobody wants it though cause your whole premise was that it would work across all platforms, barring nobody 

This is the dilemma and if I am missing something very simple let me know. I think software should be free (totally free) but I think innovators should be able to use free code as a means to pay for innovation (as I talk about) for the good of us all.

My idea of doing this is very flawed. In my case I would set a cap on income that is very small and fair in terms of my input. Others may simply want a $100,000M or so, and thats what ruins it human greed.

So any ideas on solving this would be great.

David


  

> > On the issue of using the code, I wont at all. 
>
> Thank you.
No worries, again thanks for the honesty and no harm done.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part