🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12 Oct 1998 20:20:21 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:

>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.
>

I don't have any problem with this suggestion, but I don't think it
will change things much.  I don't think the useful life of code is
much more than a couple of years.  Everytime the publisher upgrades,
it obtains a new copyright.  Under this scheme, the copyright of Word6
would just be lapsing.  How much demand is there for an upgraded,
debugged Word6?

But it's an interesting idea and certainly has some merit.  Perhaps
there is a market for an improved Word6.  I imagine one could at least
make some kind of living doing it.  You could even make the argument
that what we need is not newer versions of Word with all sorts of
useless features, but a better version of the old package.  So yeh, I
can go along with this.

>
>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.
>
Well, I think you already have the right to fix and even to pay
someone to fix your own.