🚀 go-pugleaf

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. As a
programmer I don't want to have to have a patent lawyer go through every
line of code I write in case I duplicate something which has been
patented.

Widespread software patenting would put an end to programming as we know
it and confine it to the really big players (who would collect and pool
patents).

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? That's little better than a lottery. The kind of free software
enthusiasts that would be likely to be appointed don't come close to
being representative of the real user base. And how many new programs
come out a year? Would the majority be unpaid for? Would committee
members spend all their time playing computer games to see how they
liked the middle and endgame? Or would they be more influenced by the
elegance of the source code that whether the program did anything
useful?

Or do you do it on number of copies people write in and say they've
made. In that case what about vertical application? Some applications
require a lot of effort and yet are aimed at a limited sector of the
market. These applications are currently, and necessarilly, sold at a
high price.

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

That leads you towards a system where users themselves decide where to
allocate their software tax. In other words pretty much like the present
system.