🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov1.201724.28745@m.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>I have to agree here. I think software patents are evil. I think the
>application of the current copyright laws to user interfaces are evil.
>However, I also think providing zero protection for innovation is also
>evil (this is where I break from the LPF). I support some modified
>system of short-term protection (two years is probably the right
>time-frame; enough time to beat everyone else to market with the new
>innovation and recover the costs of innovation, while not so long that
>reuse by others is stifled). Until such a system is developed, I hope
>that current software patents and user-interface copyrights are
>disallowed and the laws are changed to prevent new ones from appearing.

This makes good, good sense to me.  As much time as I spend defending
LPF positions, I find I have this creeping feeling that die-hard LPF
proponents are just as unreasonable as the people they so often dump on.
I have no objection to copyrighting a basic invention.  Even an inter-
face.  I just resent it when I feel everyone has to walk on eggs over
all the patent and copyright restrictions, even to the point of having
to use a different icon (i.e. trashcan) to delete files.

One thing that concerns me greatly is that the LPF copyleft agreements
actually restrict me in ways that annoy me a great deal.  I'm modifying
a programming language right now that's supported by NSF grant.  One of
the conditions of that grant is that the software be public domain.  I
am going to have to actually re-package all the GNU code into separate
modules because it's copyrighted.  Sheesh.  No chance the GNU mods will
ever make it into the main distribution module because it - get this -
is too heavily *restricted*.

If all the LPF wanted to do was prevent copyrights and patents from cover-
ing basic code and algorithms, then there would be no need for copyleft.
Once published, it would be "prior art" with respect to later patent at-
tempts.  The LPF, though, doesn't want anyone to write programs that are
available only in source distributions.  This is not just an assertion
about intellectual freedom, but about property rights, and in fact about
the basic structure of a capitalistic economy.  I'm not sure I want to
have all this political crap forced down my throat.  Maybe it's right;
maybe not.  I want the freedom to decide these questions for myself, and
not be reminded, whenever I deviate from the exact party line, that I'm
not being "ethical" (which is ironic, given that software engineers are
often very agnostic/atheistic in their views on life).

Still, through it all, I think the LPF is doing more good than harm.  It
is a lot easier to deal with a copyright that enforces complete freedom
than to deal with the standard sorts of copyrights we see in the software
industry.  So don't anyone take my griping as an indication of complete
disgust.  IMHO the FSF is a good organization, too.  And I have no objec-
tion to distributing anything I write in source form.  I guess I would just
like to see a little flexibility.

(One person's opinion.)
-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@sophist.uchicago.edu         rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer