🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) writes:
>
>What we should really do
>is ban the copyright of software altogether.  Over the past few years I have
>seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability.  I know many 
>will disagree but I am serious - think about it!  What we should pay for is
>the support.  Consumers should refuse to buy (or use!) copyright software and
>insist on source code for the software they do use.  

One of the many problems with this is the adverse affect it would have on the
software design itself. The more easy to learn, use, and maintain 
a product was, the less support it would need. Thus, very there would
be little pressure to produce good software--only essential software.

>There must be a better way!  We don't
>expect mathematicians to copyright their proofs, and yet mathematics
>progresses.  

 Yet, well developed proofs may be reported in journals and discussed
at conferences--even named after the develper. The renown of such good
work is a reward in itself and may lead to appointments and a better
life. There is compensation in a great many ways that drive the research.
  On the other hand, engineering a useful tool for the purpose of
monetary gain seems a reasonable enterprise itself--one more similar
to writing a book or inventing a new chemical treatment process. It
is pretty generally accepted that scientific and mathematic
discoveries (of the ways of nature or numbers) may not be copyrighted,
while specific linguistic matter or engineered designs can be. This
arrangement has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years now.
  The primary difference that the engineering of software brings 
is in how easily it may be copied and used without remnumeration
to its creators/owners. Some argue that it can't be controlled. You
take the stance that it shouldn't...presumably even if could be 
easily controlled. Is that right?

tonyM