Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> There's already lots of zlib/MIT/etc software authors out there, how many of them have gotten ripped off from money that would have otherwise ended up in their pocket?

Oracle sells zlib database compression for $11500 per processor.

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd they even make it free in the first place?

Maybe they're commies. Ask Stallman.

On 23.10.2011 22:59, Chante wrote:
> "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff@dilacero.org>  wrote in message
> news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>
>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>
>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it
>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
>> remain available with further distributions.
>>
>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to
>> infect you without your consent.

I don't think that's completely true. You can look at code (and download it) before you discover that it's GPLed. It's happened to me a few times. Mostly when there was code included in an article; but sometimes when the license was changed from BSD to GPL when the code was updated.

On 10/26/2011 07:32 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Kagamin"<spam@here.lot>  wrote in message
> news:j884ui$cra$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>
>>>> Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free
>>>> code
>>>> while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
>>>
>>> It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.
>>
>> Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.
>
> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
> someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd
> they even make it free in the first place?
>
>

Free software is not software that is gratis. It is software that respects the freedom of its end users. The problem is not that others profit from the software. That is okay. The problem is that proprietary developers may make the end users dependent on their own proprietary/non-free version, at which point the end users lose control about their computing. The GPL prohibits that.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:09:48 -0400, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
>> someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd
>> they even make it free in the first place?
>
> I have no problem with companies making money from FOSS by providing
> value added service or proprietary components, as long as they are
> clearly seen to be "giving back" to the FOSS community as a "quid pro
> quo".  What I object to is companies taking FOSS software, making a
> proprietary product from it, getting updates from the FOSS community for
> free, restricting product purchasers regarding the FOSS software and
> generally treating the FOSS community as a pool of slave labour to be
> milked.

So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e. you want something in return)?  Interesting...

-Steve

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:

>
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>>
>>> Chante Wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
>>>> knowledge  to
>>>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
>>>> as a
>>>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
>>>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
>>>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
>>>> are
>>>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>>>
>>> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
>>> equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going
>>> to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims
>>> from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but
>>> GPL can  also protect *your* code.
>>
>> Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent
>> system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they
>> were  able to get a patent for it.
>>
>> I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material
>> patents.  For several reasons:
>>
>> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
>
> Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
> inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.

Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an entity puts into writing software.

>> 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software
>> is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
>> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>
> Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
> boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by the
> source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.

Software is not unlike math.  It achieves something based on an abstract concept of the world.  It has practical uses.  But math is not patentable.

>
>> It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed
>> via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a very
>> good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not
>> patentable.
>
> Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. Software,
> OTOH, does do things of practical utility.

Music and art are both different from software and the same.  They are different because there are no rules for creating valid music or art.  I could bang on the wall randomly with a pipe, and try to sell that as music (and ironically, I might succeed).  But they are the same because writing music and creating art that *is good* is a difficult thing that requires careful thought, planning, and execution.

-Steve

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
>
> You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library without knowing about ranges concept? That's what patents are for.

patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that would otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent something, you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of your invention.  In return, you bestow upon the world the secret behind your idea.  This allows people to build on your idea in the future, instead of nobody ever being able to discover what your invention was.

Not to mention that no other IP protection exists for machine design -- you cannot copyright a car.

Given that any item of software can be reverse engineered and studied, this can never happen with software.  Add that to the fact that software patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.  They are mostly used as weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like building cars.  In other words, there's no need for patents to allow software ideas to be seen by others, it's possible to extract the ideas from the code.

>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
>> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>
> Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent doesn't protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work put into it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good chance to be more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's perfectly valid to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees for it.

And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?  Again, copyright already covers software.  Plenty of software companies have large amounts of IP and are successful without having any software patents.

>
>> It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
>
> Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you need continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as any other labor.

What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company who can throw money around beat you using your idea.  In software, since the software is protected by copyright, the competition must build their own version of your software ideas first, and the distribution is relatively insignificant.  In other words, once you release your idea to the world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of days, giving you the lion share of the market.

Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of development.  Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does not hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.

And again, the software you write is already protected IP -- copyright.

>> 4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual,
>> working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that
>> inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.
>
> I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.

When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, there is a large investment and cost in just designing the item, or the means to manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple individual has the capital necessary to create it, and if he does, or can raise it, a patent search is usually done to avoid complications.  He might also look at expired patents to get ideas on how to do things.

However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a couple weeks.  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just 2 weeks time to create the software.  Here, the patent system is just getting in the way of innovation.  It's having the opposite effect by instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding company is going to squash him out of business.

When was the last time you did anything with a patented software technology except *avoid it like the plague*?

> How to improve patent system is another question. GPL3 can actually play some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.

IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work is done.

>> 5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more apt
>> to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent system?  That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is this relevant?

-Steve

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e. you want something in return)?  Interesting...

It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:31 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.
>> you want something in return)?  Interesting...
>
> It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.

I choose to provide my efforts to *anyone* without discrimination.  I.e. freedom without strings attached.

-Steve

On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff@dilacero.org>  wrote in message
>> Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
>> has been voluntarily adopted around the world,

> So have the non-viral free licenses.

And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true"
and not mudslinging?