Picking a license

[Martin P. Hellwig]

On 05/09/10 18:24, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> <cut>
> Wait, what? Why shouldn't I profit repeatedly from the "same work 
> already done"? *I* created, its *mine*. I put blood, sweat and tears 
> into it and perhaps huge amounts of resources, risking financial 
> security and sanity, and you're arguing I shouldn't have the right to 
> sell it after its done?
Of course, but what do you do if you find out that your potential 
customer already has your software without paying you?
>
> Exactly how do you imagine I'm going to make money off of it? How the 
> existing system works is that I sell... multiple copies of it. Maybe 
> hundreds or thousands before that investment is recouped. At that 
> point, do I no longer get to sell multiple copies? Or do I have to 
> find someone to retroactively pay me some kind of salary? What does 
> "pay for work" even mean?
>
As a simple developer I do not think my craft is more special than any 
other craft like carpentry, masonry, plumbing, electrician etc.
And as I see how other crafts get paid I think is reasonable for my 
craft too, I am either employed and paid by the hour or take more risks 
and do projects, commissions, etc. etc.

Of course if I would be in the construction business and I build a house 
I can either sell it or let it, but then I do take the risk that the 
occupant uses my work beyond what I expected and eventually end up with 
a huge repair costs.

I am sure you can imagine the rest of my comparison arguments between 
construction and software development.

> What's wrong with software copyrights? Don't lump intellectual 
> property issues together, they're not comparable. Copyrights have 
> nothing at all to do with patents which have nothing at all to do with 
> trademarks. Each is a very different set of law.
Very true and in my opinion they all share the same trait, although they 
are once made to make sure the original author gets credit and profit 
for his/her work they are primarily used now to profit beyond 
reasonableness and actually encumber future development and good use, 
IMHO they actually hinder the intellectual development of the human race.

>
> Sure, there's some nutty corner cases in copyrights, which need to be 
> addressed-- including things like fair use and DRM. But on the whole, 
> copyrights aren't really all that broken. Its nothing like the 
> situation with software patents, which are just sort of crazy.
Okay so what do you actually do if you find out that in another country, 
which do not share the same legislation (about the other 80% of the 
population) brakes your copyright or does not uphold the patent 
restrictions?
If your big like Microsoft you might try to convince that particular 
government that their citizens should pay you, otherwise good luck (even 
for Microsoft as they seem to fail more often than succeed in that notion).

They are broken because by definition restrictions need enforcement to 
uphold them, if there is no enforcement it will not work. Perhaps a 
better solution would be to find a way that does not need any 
enforcement (or limited amount of it), say like the economy worked prior 
to patents and copyrights minus kings and tyrants.
>
>     For those who say it can't be done, sure it can, all you have to
>     do is nothing, it takes effort to enforce policies.
>
>
> And an entire industry ceases to exist overnight, with countless new 
> homeless people showing up on the streets.
I have the opposite opinion but neither of us have given any facts or 
proven research papers on this so shall we call this quits?
>
> You can believe in the Free Software movement (I'm not saying you do, 
> this 'you' is impersonal and metaphorical)-- and if you do, good for 
> you. You can believe in "morality" with regards to "freedom" and the 
> "essential rights" of the users. I find it all nonsensical. But good 
> for you if you believe in it. But the Free Software movement exists 
> *because* of copyrights. Copyright Law is what makes the GPL even 
> possible.
>
<cut>
I don't believe in a system which is based on enforcing rules and where 
breaking of this rule at most results in a hypothetical loss of income. 
Some enforced rules are of course necessary, like not going on a 
pillage/killing/raping spree (except of course if this is your job but 
then your still governed by the rules of Geneva -- yeah I know bold 
military statement, but I have been there too, the military that is). I 
rather like to find a way where minimal rule enforcing is necessary to 
make a living.
> But I fail to see what's fundamentally wrong with that system.
>
I hope I have further explained my point of view and hope that you agree 
with me at least from my perspective, I do understand though that your 
point of view is perfectly valid and reasonable. It is just that I am a 
sucker for seeking alternative ways to improve systems even if they only 
show small amounts of defects. So you could argue that I have my sight 
set for an Utopia while you rather remain in the reality, if you can 
find yourself with this than at least we can agree on that :-)

-- 
mph