[OT] What is Open Source?

[Paul Rubin]

mertz at gnosis.cx (David Mertz, Ph.D.) writes:
> "Clark C . Evans" <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote previously:
> |I don't.  I firmly believe that copyright and patent are
> |fundamentally good ideas (trademark is the best of the three).
> |They are a contract between the public as a whole to a inventor/author.
> 
> The only problem with this belief is that it is completely, totally,
> 100% wrong.  A copyright is, quite simply, a legally enforced artificial
> monopoly--not a contract.  These are quite different things.

I think Clark was using contract in a metaphorical sense, describing a
deal made with authors on one side, and society as a whole on the
other.  In what's called the "copyright bargain", society agrees to
grant limited temporary monopolies, in exchange for increased
"progress in science and the useful arts".

There is some really terrific reading on the legal history of
copyright in the Amicus Curiae briefs to Eldred vs. Ashcroft linked
from <http://eldred.cc/news>.  If you're not aware, Eldred
vs. Ashcroft is a case currently before the Supreme Court that aims to
get the most recent copyright extension (Sonny Bono Copyright Term
Extension Act, passed in 1998 by Disney lobbyists trying to stop
Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain, and extending all
copyrights by 20 years) thrown out on the grounds that it doesn't
promote progress.  I especially recommend Malla Pollack's brief which
is short and forceful.

For patents, Fritz Machlup's 1958 "Economic Review of the Patent
System" is terrific, but I don't know if it exists online.  It's a
report to the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of
the Senate Judiciary Commitee, 85th Congress 2d Session.  One of these
days I'll get a hardcopy and scan it.  Some excerpts are here:

  http://swpat.ffii.org/papri/machlup58/index.en.html