Picking a license

[Stephen Hansen]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Martin P. Hellwig <
martin.hellwig at dcuktec.org> wrote:

> 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?


Nothing. There's really very little benefit to me to go after "potential
customers". There will always be warez trading and cracked versions of any
product out there that someone can pirate. So what? The vast majority of the
people downloading that aren't actually *potential customers*. They'd never
have bought the products to begin with.

Now, if I find out some other company happens to be selling my software,
them I'd sue into oblivion and make a killing -- copyright lets me do that.


>
>> 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.


You're comparing apples to rabbits. There's nothing even vaguely alike
between the two no matter how much you are trying to compare them:
carpentry, masonry, plumbing, all of that deal with *physical* items, that
by their very nature create singular, specific, tangible items and/or
services.

If I create a software product on commission for some private company,
that's almost-kind of like what happens for other "crafts", wherein someone
pays me some amount of money for some amount of work to produce a finished
product. But how exactly do you imagine I would make money if I have some
idea for some great new program and I write it on my own?

The only way is to... sell multiple copies. Or try to find someone to give
me one big lump sum for the privilege of releasing it to the universe.

Software is intangible, irregardless of the fact that it might show up on a
physical medium. You can't compare work of the mind with work of physical
crafts-- one is not more worthy of money then the other, but they are
*different*.


>
>  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.


You say 'very true' but then you lump them all together again. "They" are
not at all for the same thing.

Copyrights are intended, indeed, to make sure the original author gets
credit and profit for his creative work. They tend to last a rather long
time these days.

Patents are intended to allow a relatively short-term monopoly on some new
invention, so that the vast costs of R&D can be justified, but also so that
the -result- of that R&D will be published to the public and after that
monopoly is over, allow everyone to benefit. They are an encumbrance, yes,
but a temporary one: and after that encumbrance is over, the inventor losers
all control over the invented. Unfortunately, patents are woefully broken
due to business methods and software being allowed to be 'patented', which
is just silly on both cases.

Trademarks are intended to protect the *consumers*, by disallowing companies
from marketing in a confusing way such that what they are selling may be
mistaken for what a reputable third-party is selling. A company can
trademark its "brand", and by doing so customers can know that brand and IF
they trust it, rely on it when they see it. Trademarks actually, IMHO, work
quite well -- companies actually have to enforce them and be pro-active
about them, unlike with patents, where one can sit around and wait for
another to firmly establish themselves with technology based on your patent,
then jump in and sue. I fail to see how there's really anything
"encumbering" about trademarks.

>
>> 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).
>

Umm.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Berne_Convention_signatories.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/WIPO.png

And a couple others, including the Pair Convention of something or other.

Intellectual property law is pretty globally standard these days. That's not
to say that in some places its not largely ignored in certain sectors, but
see first response above.


> 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.


... copyright dates back to the 1700's.

And, there are ways to enforce the "restrictions"-- which are not
restrictions, but instead enforcement of rights that I, as the one who made
this creative work, hold. Its a civil action. (Though certain types and
kinds of infringement may in some jurisdictions be a criminal offense)


>
>> 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.


I find i can make a living quite well with basically zero "rule enforcing",
because of copyrights. I really don't need to enforce that every kid out
there might get an illegal copy of a program I wrote. They aren't my
customers. However, because I have copyright, I can be sure that no other
companies are going to start completing with me based on my own work. (That
I made this argument in a thread about open source licensing, and the irony
therein, does not escape me)

Cuz then I'll sue their ass off.

But its never happened. And I don't expect it to happen. Because copyright
is an international, pretty clearly standardized set of law.


>
>  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 :-)
>

Had you stuck to wanting to make patents make sense, I would have agreed
with you about half the way-- but I actually, mostly, sorta think copyrights
are fine. Even with idiocies like DRM. I think the market has to decide to
turn away from DRM. (I'm looking at you Ubisoft: you've lost over $100
already from me!)

--S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100509/6a76263d/attachment-0001.html>