🚀 go-pugleaf

In <36212554.2137516@news.concentric.net> darrow@oneillaw.com (M O'Neill) writes:

>Bill, I'm missing part of your point.  You talk alot about what the
>owners of software copyrights shouldn't be allowed to do, but what I
>can't figure out (maybe I missed some of your posts) is what rights
>you believe others should have were, say, the source code to be
>released?  I think this is the more important point.

>I wouldn't expect you to say that anyone should be able to take
>someone else's software and sell it.  So what would you like to see?

Good question. a) I would like to see the copyright period shortened
coniserably. I do not believe that software source has the same
"timelessness" as say a novel or a piece of music. Ie, after some short
period of time (I hae suggested 5 years, but clearly this figure does
not arise from any deep analysis.-- It would be interesting to know why
the absordly long periods for traditional copyrights got decided on.),
the copyright would lapse and the material would go into the public
domain.


b)During the period of the copyright I would probably give the owner the
right to commercially exploit that source code, and even "essential
parts" thereof. However, the source could be used to enhance, or to fix
bugs in the original program. Enhanced programs would be sold after some
agreement between the original party and the enhancer. However anyone
would have the right to fix their own, or even to hire someone to fix
their own copies of the software, and to recompile it if necessary.