🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6NOV199102451712@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu
(Bill Johnston) writes:
>In article <1991Nov5.210739.19151@iitmax.iit.edu>, draughn@iitmax.iit.edu
>(Mark Draughn) writes...

[A scenario in which software that I release to the public domain is
 modified and used commercially by someone else.]

>But why is this so bad?  The code you wrote is still available for free.
>People who are interested in free software can still make improvements on it. 
>It still exists as "prior art".
>
>Because you have released the source to everyone, the software company
>will have strong competition from the improvements that people make
>to your code.  This means that the company will have to extend your
>work considerably in order to make it worth buying.

All of these statements are just as true for CopyLefted code as they are
for public domain code.

>>Boy, will I feel stupid.  I'm in the position of a musician who writes
>>a Christmas song and releases it to the public domain, so that
>>carolers and school choirs can use it, only to discover that someone
>>has recorded a single and is making big money from it.  Here's someone
>>making money off of my work, and I have no way to stop it.
>
>But what's wrong with this?  It happens all the time with ideas 
>published in the academic literature.  In fact, it's the main reason
>why society commits public funds to support public research.  Some
>people like to work on theoretical problems, without worrying about
>commercial aspects.  We give them a few bucks, and occasionally reap
>the reward of great new ideas and technologies.
>
>My own work, for example, attempts to explain some of the mechanical
>behavior of carbon fibers.  In the ordinary conduct of this research
>I have stumbled across a few facts that might have practical value
>for companies interested in making widgets out of these fibers.
[...]
>If I disclose my chance findings, some company is sure to make a few
>extra bucks by taking advantage of my work.  I don't have an interest
>in going into the widget business myself, so why should I let somebody 
>else benefit?  Should I "CopyLeft" my idea?

It would be nit-picking to point out that ideas can't be CopyLefted
because they can't be copyrighted.  Nevertheless, the distinction
between ideas and finished works seems important in this case.  It's
true that academic research is rarely protected by a patent.  However,
specific expressions of the ideas --- theses and journal articles ---
are often protected.  This is from an article from _ACM Transactions on
Graphics_:

         "Permission to copy without fee all or part of this
          material is  granted provided that the  copies are
          not  made  or distributed  for direct   commercial
          advantage, the ACM copyright  notice and the title
          of the publication and its date appear, and notice
          is   given that copying is   by  permission of the
          Association  for  Computing Machinery.    To  copy
          otherwise, or to republish,  requires a fee and/or
          specific permission."

Sounds a bit like CopyLeft to me...

[...]
>Another way to answer the question is that while it may be possible 
>for people to own _some_ kinds of information, it sure is nice when 
>people share ideas that are useful.

Ideas are not the problem.  If someone wants to write functionally
equivalent code, that's fine.  But if someone wants to reuse my code,
I want to have some control.

>>With CopyLeft, I can do a good deed by giving away my work, without
>>worrying that someone else will take advantage of my good will.
>
>This is the part that I don't understand.  How does it hurt anyone
>for that code to be used commercially? 

It doesn't hurt anyone, but it doesn't help me either.  If someone
wants to use the code commercially, that's fine; but I'd like to share
in the profits.

>>I realize that my concerns go beyond ensuring that the right to use
>>source code is unrestricted.  In fact, there is one particular use of
>>source code that I definitely want to restrict.  However, I don't
>>think there is any political agenda involved.
>
>Fair enough.  Call it a private agenda.  It is your code -- at least
>until software intellectual property is abolished -- and you can use
>it as you see fit, including CopyLefting it so that no one (except you,
>of course) can use it as the basis of a commercial application.
>
>In my opinion, it "wastes the value of the program that's been written".
>
>But who would argue that this is a bad thing?

I think we're looking at this from different perspectives.

I don't have problems with the concept of copyrighted code.  If I
write code, I want to own it so that I can have the option of making
money off of it.  However, I'm willing to make an exception by
allowing people to use the software for free if they, in turn, allow
others to use it for free.  CopyLeft permits this.

I'm not saying that I'm going to CopyLeft everything I ever write.
This is mostly a theoretical discussion.  In fact, I've never
CopyLefted anything.  I've put a few things in the public domain,
though.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616