Message 01657 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 12/129 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux




On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Niall Douglas wrote:

Software is very, very different from other types of creative work - 
it's a direct engineering solution. Not plans for a solution, an 
*actual* solution.

  I've had this debate in various pro-patent forums and I disagree with it 
here just as much as I disagree with it there.   Software may exist within 
the field of engineering, but it is also an expression of public policy, 
of art, and of things in many other fields.  Yes there are those from the 
early days that did not differentiate hardware from software that consider 
software to either be an expression of math or or engineering, but we need 
to get past that limited way of looking at software.


  Software is no more simply an engineering solution than Robert's rules or 
an act of parliament is.

of technical knowledge just to operate a computer, you need way way 
more to design software plus there is very little tolerance for error 
- - a comma in the wrong place, and your software isn't going to work. 
There is more give for error in designing a jet engine.

  This is a discussion of the limits of early languages used to create
software, not an expression that is inherently true of all software 
creation.

  I also challenge you to speak to a musician to see if those instruments
are as forgiving as you seem to believe, or that the knowledge is so much
easier.  I truly believe the issue is access to tools (and part of that
relates to breaking past the limits of early languages used to express
software) and literacy.

Therefore, quite rightly, programmers tend to respect other 
programmers of note.

  And musicians don't?  Traditional literature authors don't?  Journalists 
don't?  Politicians don't?  Lawyers don't?

  Why is one type of knowledge worker considered uniquely different than 
any and all other types of knowledge workers?

There is therefore an implicit elite in computer software and human 
nature being like it is, we try to emulate our masters.

  I am not suggesting that we don't all have exceptional people that we in 
a given field look up to.  What I am challenging is that this is in any 
way unique to computer software.


I personally am far more interested in free software because it shows 
that engineers don't need management - they can self-manage. This 
seals shut the case for obsoleting the classical hierarchical 
management model used by western business.

  Thinking of software as an engineer is fine, and that is one of the many
contexts that software exists.  I think of and interact with software
primarily as an expression of public policy.  I am not saying you are
wrong and do believe that some software is an expression of an engineering
solution, but you do need to realize that this is not the only thing
software can be an expression of.

  Please don't confuse free/gratis with free/libre.  Those who say

I meant it both ways - as I said previously, information is power - 
therefore, it will be innate human nature to control information as a 
means of exerting power.

  I would never participate in a free/gratis software movement.  I'm all
for royalty-free software, but royalty payments are simply one business
model amongst many.  I would fight strongly against any movement that 
suggested that all software had to be non-commercial and that there was to 
be no way to make money by creating software.

moral and material rights of creators as expressed in the UN UDHR
article 27b (balanced with other important rights such as
communications right sin article 19 and the rights of society to gain
from creativity in article 27a).

I take the view that all copyright & patent law needs throwing away 
and redesigning from the ground up.

  The important question then becomes: what is the ground?  What is your 
starting point for these laws?  I have offered mine, and I agree with 
article 19 and 27 of the UN UDHR.

  I have realized that the changes I would make to these laws are not all 
that different than the origins of the existing laws.  They simply need to 
be modernized coming from first principles, not abolished.

  Patents should be limited to processes involving the manipulation of
nature to create a tangible rivalrous product.  Where the process is
involved in the creation of intangible non-rivalrous goods, such as 
information processes (software, business models, methods of organizing 
people, governance structures, etc) then patent law simply does not apply.

  Copyright law needs to recognize in various limits of scope (including 
term) that different creative works require different levels of 
protection.  Software receiving the same term of copyright as literature 
is completely insane.

  Copyright also needs to be limited to never protecting communication
interfaces, whether they be UI's, API's, file format, interface protocols,
or other such things in the digital world or alphabets, language, etc used 
outside of the digital world.


No matter what, the information age and the ability to copy digital
information for no cost will ensure copyright law will become
unenforceable within decades, so it'll have to be rewritten.

  The ability to cheaply communicate information is unrelated to whether
or not governments should offer some sort of limited temporary monopoly 
to the moral and material rewards or the creator/inventor.

  One of the problems we have today is an attempt to treat business model
limitations as law enforcement issues.  An example is all the hoopla
about peer-to-peer non-commercial music sharing on the Internet which is
simply a non-issue.

  - music copyright infringement online is solved by changing the business
model.  Don't charge for non-commercial private communication of music,
but treat that as advertisement for commercial communication (media sales,
concerts, other products/services, etc).  Don't promote using expensive
commercial air-time, but receive payment from commercial air-time and
promote peer-to-peer.

  - software copyright infringement is also solved by changing business
models away from royalty-based business models.  FLOSS business models are
ideal, and limit the copyright infringement cases to cases against
"software pirates" like the SCO group.  Proprietary software business
models would also work if on a subscription service like many companies
are moving to where it is per-computer-per-year or per-employee-per-year,
not per-copy.  Proprietary software business models probably don't make
sense for the home computer market at all.


---
 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/



Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 12/129 L6 [In index]
Message 01657 [Homepage] [Navigation]