Re: Galeon R.I.P?
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
...
I can control my system, I can't control my clients' computers, so
I want a minimum of possible errors on their computers.
I would not want to make it easy for someone to grab my code and
compete. Maybe later, but I'm still within a year of finishing all
the development work.
I can understand. And, as I said, I am not attempting to discuss your
particular usage. Just the idea of open vs. closed source in general
and the economic arguments in favor of clsoed source. And frankly,
I'm not sure where I stand in a situation like yours. Likely in a
similar position.
I've considered this situation many times over. All the tools I use are
open source. I avoid closed source programs whenever possible and have
been quite keen to build my business on a grounds that I consider
ethical and moral.
My first post on this thread was in response to someone making what I
consider a quite foolish statement that, essentially, closed source
software was unethical. I know some people respect (such as RMS) say
that, but I also think it's a statement that's more easily made by
people who get nice tidy paychecks and aren't the ones who have to
figure out how to do the marketing.
Collectively, so far, there is no competitive aspect in the thinking.
Rather than two opposing camps being set up, with the classic "either,
or" duality, all we have to do is change our thinking.
There are those that insist that the creator of the work is being
selfish in retaining ownership of his work and not releasing it into the
"commons" or "public domain", whichever applies, but if he/she is, it's
the same degree of selfishness that resides in the mental attitude that
presumes they are entitled to feed off the creation of another without
having provided any input themselves. Parasitism, basically.
In an environment where the fiscal aspect means survival, earning money
from the sweat of one's brow is not an unethical behaviour.
There is a middle road, and it doesn't reside in the "99 years with
option" style of copyright currently established and being spread from
the American realm of jurisprudence into the realms of other nations by
way of free trade agreements and the ilk.
The present movement of establishing a wide range of copyright and
patenting options is a healthy one, giving everybody their individual
choice in the situation, and individual choice is what it's all about.
The patent scenario is every bit as insane as that posited by the
current copyright debacle.
Say I was to come up with an original idea for a product.
I would have no problem in registering a patent that had a maximum term
of fifteen years.
This would give me the time to source finance (5 years?).
The time to commence manufacture and begin to establish a profit from my
invention (5 years?).
The time to streamline my processes and place myself into an
unassailable position in the marketplace, well ahead of any competition
(5 years?).
Anybody know what the current patent term is?
After 15 years I would have no problem in placing my creation into the
public domain so that others could build on it, and would get as great a
deal of pleasure from seeing the benefit to the greater good of the
community at large, as I would from any other stage of the process.
Perhaps more.
Copyright's the same.
Current lack of philosophies do nothing but benefit the few at the
expense of the common good.
Nothing new here, so the thinking is wrong.
>
If I write a program, a story, a song, a script, or anything else, or if
I create a song or movie or any other IP work, I made it. Just as if I
put the effort into making a chair or a car or anything else. It's up
to me to decide what I do with it and how I'll find a way to get
rewarded for my work. If I want to sell it as closed source software,
I have every right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they
don't have to buy it or deal with it.
On the flip side, I do contribute to FOSS projects and hope, when this
work is done, that any programming I do later will all be FOSS, but for
now, I have the task of earning a living to deal with as well.
It would level the playing field if everyone were on the same
field. They're not.
true.
I think eventually we'll see more open source than closed source, but
over the past 25 years or so, it seems the innovations have been made
in closed source, then emulated in open source. There are advantages
to different business models.
Yes, they breed competition which is always good on the evolutionary
level, but the longer it stays closed source, the closer to the "dog in
a manger" philosophy it becomes.
I don't disagree with making money off honest effort.
I've never made it any other way.
But the longer the original idea is unavailable to the public domain,
innovation is stifled and the common good of the community is held in
suspended animation at best.
Regards,
--
David Palmer
Linux User - #352034
Reply to: