🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ge4eqINNp10@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de writes:
>In <1gajk7INNrtv@tamsun.tamu.edu> lehmann@cs.tamu.edu (Mark A Lehmann) writes:
>
>>Now for little utilities that took one person a year to write on their
>>own time, mainly for fun; I agree that the software price should mainly
>>comprise of the production cost of the manaul, disk reproduction service,
>>and shipping and handling.
>
>>But golly kim, how do you expect someone to place their career in
>>programming and then tell them that he or she is not allowed to eat.
>
>I have, at least in the "Copyleft and Copyright" thread  that  is
>related  to  this  one, explicitly stated that I fully understand
>that programmers need to get paid for  their  work.  However,  it
>must not be possible to make unlimited money from a finite amount
>of  work.  This  is  exactly  what  the  concept  of  commercial,
>copyrighted software does: They buy the rights on a program for a
>finite amount of money, and then they have the right to make  and
>sell infinitely many copies of the stuff. The first  thousand  or
>so  copies they sell will make them some profit, which is ok, but
>for each copy beyond these thousand (don't be  picky  about  this
>number,  it's  just an example) most of the money they get for it
>is for nothing. 

You're describing only one area of software; namely the MASS MARKET.
I suspect that the majority of software development actually takes
place at other levels, in the form of "custom software."
Customization (whether it's particularly creative or not) does cost a
lot, and does NOT result in an "infinite" number of useful copies.
For a specialized report, there might actually only be ONE user.

>I think that is  a  fundamental  problem  in  the
>concept of marketing copyrights. Software companies rip off  both
>programmers and users these days.

If you were more specific, and targetted MASS MARKET software houses
selling PERSONAL products with your statements, it would be easier to
agree with you.

It probably is true that there's some companies that have encouraged
policies that rip people off.  It's certainly not unique to the
software industry.

What is clear is that the PERSONAL mass market of computer software
doesn't seem to be working very well.

The presence of piracy on a large scale, combined with enormous (and
non-obvious) piracy support industries like the "substitute-manual"
publishers shows that the system is creaking badly.

People have developed the "shareware" concept that creaks alongside
the "commercial" software industry.

Prices of commercial packages ARE too high, as a reaction to piracy,
and it's all created a pretty vicious circle.

I'd like to see some useful proposals that might help things.  I'm
willing to put some money into the shareware concept - it goes a long
ways towards short-circuiting the "piracy problem," By sending out
some money, I can help encourage people to continue development of
inexpensive software, which IS in my best interests.

I wouldn't mind sending a few bucks towards the FSF, and other such
organizations.  The GNU project gives commercial enterprises some
competition, and improves the "lowest common denominator."  It means
that commercial enterprises have got to do BETTER than they might
otherwise; is that a BAD thing?  It may make business tougher for USL,
but nobody ever guaranteed THEM a free and easy market.

I'll bet that G++ has hurt the sales of the Comeau C++ compiler.
(Particularly now that 2.3.2 has working Templates :-).  It also means
that the people at Comeau have to make their product better than G++
in order to keep in business.  If G++ kills Comeau, that may be too
bad.  On the other hand, looking from a "higher" economic perspective,
the presence of G++ meant that the "optimal" allocation of resources
in the economy didn't include keeping Comeau in business.

>Maybe all that is needed to resolve this problem is a law  saying
>that  after the copyright on a program expires after one year and
>is automatically converted to a copyleft.

"There ought to be a law!"  The most common, and the most STUPID
statement that people typically make.

Would you suggest that this proposal should override contract law?
What about non-disclosure agreements?  Or software that is dealt with
as a "trade secret"?  I don't think the "law proposal" is either
realistic, sensible, or even a "good idea" by any particular standard
I can think of.

What YOU ought to do is to make sure that the software that YOU
develop is covered by copyleft, and find financial means to encourage
others to produce copylefted software.

If you're going to suggest a law, then I suggest that you go a step
further, and look up your nearest legislator.  If the proposed law
change is such a good idea, then you should be able to convince him or
her that they ought to get involved with making the change.
-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier