🚀 go-pugleaf

amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes in response to me:
 
>   It is possible for the GNU guys (or anyone else) to write a faster
>   word processor with DWA-style commands and even include lots of
>   nifty features from the juicy alternatives, but what's the use if
>   you are not legally allowed to distribute it?
>
>On the other hand, what's the use of going through the effort and
>expense of putting together a really good piece of software, if anyone
>else can come by and take your design, lock, stock, and barrel,
>without even giving you the time of day?  It's like writing a novel
>and having anyone be able to publish it.  Why should Apple, which has
>invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours into user interface
>research, foot the design bill for the rest of the industry?
 
It's more like writing a novel for the pleasure of writing it and having
anyone able to read it.  Or learn from it.  Or modify it.  The one thing
they *can't* do is "publish" it and sell it for money, because it's 
copylefted!  They can sell support for it, though, just as you can.
Maybe the user needs it to be rewritten so his employees can understand
it.  (Maybe s/he needs in it comic book format!)  The end user might
need special criticism help on it...or to have certain characters added
to the story for his/her own uses.
 
(Notice that I refrained from using the "steering wheel" metaphor!)
 
>   If Apple, Lotus, and the like win precedent-setting court cases
>   over software similarity, then (as RMS pointed out) the GNU project
>   is doomed.
>
>Only if their goal is to produce the same thing as everyone else.  If GNU
is
>going to be just another UNIX, why bother?
 
Why bother?  Simply because GNU will be a *free* unix, in every sense of
the word!  Even if that's all it was to become, it would be enough. 
Thanks to the nature of the project, however, which allows for unlimited
source code distribution, users have been quick to fix bugs and add
dozens of powerful features to GNU 'wares.  This will also happen with
the GNU o/s.   
 
Does it sound like I'm raving?  I'm trying not to...
 
Amanda, what do you think about companies that take algorithms, "hard
code" them into logic circuitry, and patent the resulting machine?  This
is, in effect, patenting the algorithm.  Doesn't it strike you as a little
bit silly?
 
You seem to be basing some of your decisions in reference to this subject
on two ideas.  (Correct me if I am wrong.)  1. Desire for money and limits
of the legal system drive the process of innovation.  2. Intellectual
creations should serve to directly benefit (monetarily) only the creator.
 
Where does that leave people who create for the simple joy of creation?
Money isn't the motivator there.  What if they want as many people to
benefit from their creations as possible, freely?  Would you agree that
some legal redefining would be required should such a case present itself?
What if that programmer chose to use something that had been legally
"protected"?  What if that something was intrinsic to making his/her
program work smoothly with loads of "protected" software already in use?
Like a compression method...or a communications protocol...or it could
be anything.  
 
Where does forced innovation end and forced "wheel re-inventing" begin?
 
            -Jason Asbahr
             jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com
             jasona@nuchat.sccsi.com
--