🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <361e6c8e.2858450@news.demon.co.uk>
           malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk "Malcolm McMahon" writes:
> On 7 Oct 1998 19:20:34 -0700, jbuck@best.com (Joe Buck) wrote:
> >If somebody writes an amazing algorithm that sorts data faster than
> >anything else, the GPL won't stop commercial folks from writing their
> >own implementation.  Only a patent can do that.
> 
> And absolutely the last thing we want is software patents.

I agree.

> Whereas the market has problems with software, I must say I've yet to
> hear an alternative method of funding software development which makes
> practical sense. The "software tax" is OK on collection but nobody has
> come up with a convincing idea about how it gets distributed. A prizes
> comittee?

How about several prize committees?

Everyone who buys a PC gets to choose where 'their' software tax goes.
It can go to any 'designated free software organisation'. These 
organisations can either develop the software themselves, or
can fund other developers. They can have varying policies on 
copyright: for example, one might prefer GPL, another might prefer
freeBSD. (But all would be open source).

> If it were done by voting nobody would write anything but games.

Not necessarily. I'd be happy to vote for compilers, word processors,
spreadsheets, web servers, etc.

-- 
@@--Phil Hunt-----------------------------Don't fear the penguins(*)--@@ 
@@  [*] Disclaimer: this is FREE ADVICE, and is distributed in the    @@
@@  hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; note also  @@
@@  that this advice may not apply if your name is Gates or Ballmer.  @@