Re: [ox-en] [Fwd: <nettime> dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software]
- From: Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
Hi again Russell (and apologies for the typo in your name last time)
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
they don't like "intellectual property", are actually saying they don't
like copyright rather than disagreeing with the analogy of copyright to
tangible property.
The issue of FLOSS vs non-FLOSS (saying proprietary is
incorrect as all software not in the public domain is proprietary)
... hang on, you were the person that persuaded me that I was wrong to
say 'commercial software' and should be saying 'proprietary software'.
Now I have to call eg. Word 'non-FLOSS software'? And expect anyone at
all outside the FLOSS communities to understand me?
The problem is that neithor saying "commercial software" or "proprietary
softare" differentiates FLOSS from non-FLOSS. Each of FLOSS and non-FLOSS
can be commercial and non-commercial software, and both are proprietary
software.
If that is the whole of the argument, I'm going to stick with saying
'proprietary software' - for me, that associates it with the people who
think they can be proprietors of ideas, programs, or whatever, because
they either bought the copyright, or bought a persons rights over their
own creations by employing them with a contract that says the rights
(which IMO an author always should have) belong to the employer, not the
author. I don't think the majority of people whose names are on free
software think they are 'proprietors' of it - which doesn't mean either
that they don't, or that they shouldn't have, rights over it.
I don't know what word to use for the layperson outside of our
community, and any suggestions are greatly appreciated. I am only
allerting people to the fact that the terms "commercial software" and
"proprietary software" not only do not differentiate us, but the use of
these terms is harmful to us.
For talking to people who are completely outside software, I think
'closed source' is actually the clearest term, though obviously you can
pick holes in that if you're on the inside. But that's if you're looking
for a term to explain, rather than accurately define, it.
Have you actually got an example of a case where saying 'proprietary
software' has harmed us? It seems to have become quite common even in
the standard, non-linux etc computer press, but I've never seen its use
distorted in such a way it seems harmful. I'm sure MS can twist any term
we use though :-(
PS also, re your comments on FSF - I have heard rms say (when pushed by
his audience) that in his ideal world there would be no need for the gpl.
I'm sure he didn't mean 'no creators rights' either.
In my conversations with RMS over the years I have come to realize that
he wants to more radically change the world than I do. It was a surprise
to me to realize just how much more radical he and others more connected
with the FSF were as I previously thought of myself as quite radical.
For me the issue is a much more simpler (and achievable, as we are
largely underway) transformative buisness change recognizing the ways in
which intangibles like software are entirely different from tangibles like
hardware. From this different uses of (and limits to) copyright come out,
information process patents (or any other patents relating to processes
outside of the manufacturing of tangible products) are abolished, and
other such progressive and achievable reforms of existing laws.
I don't think I would like a world where the GPL would not be needed.
Using business models out of the manufacturing sector seems legitimate to
me in very niche markets (less than an extreme fraction of 1% of the
approximately 5% which is distributed software at alBl).
There are places where I believe such methodologies should be banned,
such as those listed in my signature.
I don't think such business models should be banned either: even with the
examples in your signature, I don't think they should be banned - it's
more that the customer (the government, in those cases) should obtain
software for those purposes from other sources. It's normally acceptable
for customers to choose what they buy! If it requires new laws to
restrict the kinds of business model it is acceptable for governments
to use, fine - but that's still not 'banning' the models themselves, just
telling the government what the real customers (the voters) want.
I do think that eventually those models will be out-competed by free
software and become obsolete (and in other fields too, not only software -
especially as the 'tangibles' become increasingly intangible. Copyright
law applies to hardware designs too, not just software. I don't think your
'clean' separation between physical and non-physical goods will be tenable
in the long run). EDA software is perhaps an example of your 'fraction of
1%', and even there the possibility (not yet reality) of being outcompeted
by free software is becoming visible.
However, this process can only happen if laws allow it. You sound more
optimistic than I feel about being able to change the law in a positive
direction - to me it seems more like a continual rearguard action, where
most of what's being achieved is just a slowing down of a process going in
completely the wrong direction (eg. the EU decisions on software patents,
which may yet be completely reversed).
Although I also believe I WOULD like the world where the gpl wouldn't be
needed, that doesn't stop me seeing all the changes you list above as
desirable - if they can be achieved within this system, which I doubt - so
IMO the two views can coexist. From my point of view, I'd see what you're
trying to achieve as an intermediate stage which is already a big
improvement on what we have now; from your point of view, isn't it useful
to be able to point to radicals who'd like to change the whole system and
say 'look, if you don't agree to these sensible and achievable reforms
you're going to be stuck with those lunatic radicals'? It seems to be
quite a common way to get reforms achieved - a kind of pincer movement.
And if you do achieve everything you've listed above, I suspect the world
will look so different both of us will be revising our opinions about
what else (if anything) needs to change... :-)
Graham
PS There are also other legal possibilities that might be acceptable from
both our points of view, but are orthogonal to what we've been talking
about; what do you think of:
http://www.in3activa.org/dic/vr4ir.html (this idea seems to me as much a
stroke of genius as the original gpl, though in a different direction. I
still haven't really digested its implications. As I understand it, it's
effectively declaring the independence of the internet from any national
copyright laws, but in a way which needs no legal changes to work. Authors
retain all copyright, assert the maximum of their legal rights in any
physical jurisdiction, but allow free copying, use, derived works etc on
the internet) (most of the site is in Spanish and not yet translated -
http://www.in3activa.org/dic/ gives the fullest explanation)
and
the free software act
http://freesoftwareact.fsc.cc/act.xhtml
This is in a very, very preliminary form: the authors' idea is to remove
free software from all the vagaries of copyright law by creating a new law
just for free software. I can see the advantages to this - for free
software - but then I need to start all over again when I want to defend
my rights in relation to, say, music, so I'm not convinced this is a good
idea.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than
politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/