🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov5.210739.19151@iitmax.iit.edu>, draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes...
>In article <5NOV199101524978@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
> 
>[A long article that makes a lot of points.  I'd like to address one
>particular aspect of CopyLeft that Mr. Johnston comments on.  I don't
>think these quotes are out of context.]

>>The only objection I have made is that everything the GPL does
>>to ensure that rights to use source code is unrestricted, is 
>>accomplished more effectively by releasing the source code to
>>the public domain.  The CopyLeft is added baggage that serves a
>>political agenda without furthering people's freedom to use
>>the CopyLefted code.

>There are other reasons to use CopyLeft besides a "political agenda."

Yes.  I should have worded this differently.

>I'm in the midst of writing a subroutine library that implements a
>small message-passing, state-machine oriented, multitasking kernel
>that can run on a PC or as a process in a multitasking environment.

[ ...interesting description ... ]

>There is a chance that other people would be able to use something
>like this.  When I'm done, I'll consider making it publicly available.
> 
>I could just put it in the public domain, but I can forsee the
>possibility of some unpleasentness.  What if some software company out
>there uses my code in a program that they sell commercially?

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.

>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 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.

The members of my dissertation commitee -- who are fine, upstanding, 
deep-thinking academicians < ;-) > -- naturally have more interest in  
the "fundamental" (ie, impractical) aspects of the project, so I am left
in a similar position to that of the programmer in the example above.

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?

The answer is that while I may never want to go into the widget
business, I like widgets.  The more the better.  The company that 
takes advantage of my idea will be able to hire more people, pay
more wages, increase dividends to its shareholders.  It may even
decide to put more money into grants so that fools like me can 
come up with more (accidentally) practical research findings.

Are these things bad?

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.  We don't expect people or 
companies to share _all_ of their ideas;  for example, if Chrysler
invests $100 million dollars to develop a new braking system for 
their automotive products, we have no right to wait till they are
done and then show up with guns and say, "It's ours, now.".
Nor do we say that it is OK for GM to buy a Chrysler, take apart 
the brakes and build their own using the same idea.

But when Chrysler researchers come up with ideas that aren't of 
great commercial importance to Chrysler, like as not we'll see 
a paper in the scientific literature the describes how the material
that turned out to be lousy as a radiator hose might be terrific
for internal sutures that dissolve naturally after surgery.

In both cases, the company respects the value of IDEAS and acts
to ensure that the ideas get used.

>Unless I use CopyLeft.

>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? 

>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?

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)

Founding member of the PFTDPFSD ... 

(People for the "Doritos Principle" of free software distribution! ;-) )