butcher@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Lawrence Butcher) (08/26/89)
Since the IBM PC first became available, everyone with a partial mastery of
BASIC has wanted to set up a software company, with hopes of getting rich.
There are several popular software packages which cost next to nothing to
develop, but which have netted the owners (NOT the authors!) hundreds of
millions of dollars in profit. I personally find this desire for unbounded
return on investment unacceptable. The GNU authors do not have this flaw.
I believe that Stallman's hard line license requirements are not reasonable.
I believe that software should cost what software costs. Software pricing
should reflect development cost plus replication cost plus maintenance cost
plus modest profit. Stallman wants software authors to place their software
in the public domain without recovering cost and without profit. Bogus.
I understand that it will not help us to bitch. The posts on this bboard
have been either of the form "Stallman is saving us" or "Stallman is
stealing from me". These are not constructive posts.
We should suggest a mechanism by which Stallman can achieve his ends, but
which at the same time allows the software author to flourish. Let me start:
1) I suggest that the GNU copyright and related license agreement stay as
they are. Once source code is released, it should be freely available.
2) I suggest that the FSF offer an alternate license agreement which
allows a software author to profit from the act of authorship in this way:
a) The author gives a copy of his source code to FSF to be owned by FSF,
but treated as a trade secret and held in confidence.
b) The author pays a fee to FSF to allow the author to SELL executables
of the escrowed software without releasing the source. The fee will be
$500.00 to allow the software author to sell executables for 1 year.
$5000.00 to allow the software author to sell executables for 2 years.
$50000.00 to allow the software author to sell executables for 3 years.
And so on.
c) At the end of the contracted period the author can extend his rights
to sell executables by paying the next year's license fee, or can
allow the software source to become publically, freely available.
d) Small bug fixes must be returned to FSF, but any substantial addition
to the code must be treated as a separate piece of software, with it's
own agreement. Old versions of source will become available when their
contract time runs out.
This compromise license would let people profit from their software FOR A
LIMITED TIME. It would also induce people to improve their software.
Although I may disagree with Stallman in small ways, I am sure that we agree
about some things. I believe that software should be written as few times
as possible, and used as many times as possible. I believe that people
should be able to look at the source of a piece of software and understand
the contents. People should then be able to use that understanding in new
pieces of software. People should be encouraged and allowed to be as
creative as possible.
As a copyright owner Stallman tries to limit the use of his software by
exercising his copyright rights and by making license restrictions. If
Stallman puts limitations on the code which are too relaxed, he will be
working for his competitors. On the other hand, if he puts limitations on
his software which are unacceptable to everyone, he becomes ineffective.
Right now the only thing keeping GNU software from sweeping the industry is
the set of limitations the GNU license places on it's use. Let us think of
ways that Stallman and the FSF can be more effective to our mutual advantage.
Lawrence Butcherjym@APPLE.COM (08/28/89)
That "compromise" pretty much ignores most everything the FSF is about.
Things go stale pretty quickly in this industry, and I imagine that a
profit-motivated software author would keep paying fees until they
ceased to be profitable, which would be about the same time it becomes
obsolete.
That doesn't sound like something the FSF---with its stated goals---would
care to implement. If you think it would be a win, though, maybe you
could find somebody to implement it.
<_Jym_>rich@sli.com (Rich K. Braun) (09/08/89)
In article <...> butcher@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Lawrence Butcher) writes: >Right now the only thing keeping GNU software from sweeping the industry is >the set of limitations the GNU license places on it's use. Have you checked recently? The GCC compiler is taking the world by storm, and G++ is very likely to. FSF has received attention in the _New York Times_ and in the _Boston Globe_, and clients of my company have begun to ask about GNU products. Indeed, the biggest threat to Ultrix, the OSF, and the Sun/BSD operating systems may turn out to be the FSF whenever it releases a full-fledged operating system. I'm just hoping it puts forward some completely new ideas, rather than just being another Unix clone. -rich
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (09/08/89)
Rich K. Braun writes: > Indeed, the biggest threat to Ultrix, the OSF, and the Sun/BSD operating > systems may turn out to be the FSF whenever it releases a full-fledged > operating system. I'm just hoping it puts forward some completely new > ideas, rather than just being another Unix clone. I would be satisfied with just another UNIX clone. The important thing is to get a freed working UNIX system, complete with source code into the hands of as many people as possible. Then the ports, enhancements and new ideas will come much more quickly, because more minds will be working on the ideas.