On the issue of intellectual property, in particular, almost 3,000 software developers from Australia and abroad have publicly opposed the proposed intellectual property clauses in the FTA.
Recently, a senate inquiry on the FTA was told why open source is actually anti-industry, and why protecting it is not in Australia's interests. The following comments from Tony Healy outline his views on why Open Source is bad for Australia. --Ed
I believe that open-source activists don't represent the Australian software industry. Open source activists nowadays stress that they love and support copyright. Technically they are correct; they use copyright to force restrictions on downstream users. But in practice, the movement is an undermining of copyright. Open source uses copyright to strip the benefit from the creator, rejecting the original intent of copyright. It relies on the original drafters of copyright never imagining that beneficiaries of copyright would use it to deny benefits to themselves.
My submission to the inquiry is reprinted below.
I would like to address some of the claims that open source activists and other copyright opponents made in hearings before the two Committees.
In general terms, I see harmonisation with Western copyright regimes as being important in building Australia's creative industries. I disagree with the general concerns expressed about this aspect of the FTA, especially with respect to the alleged open source industry. Open source is actually an anti-industry, and protecting it is not in Australia's interests.
I am a research software engineer, copyright owner and policy researcher. I have a strong interest in the success of Australian creative industries, particularly software. I have studied and worked in those industries for 20 years, and personally developed several valuable software technologies.
1
Brandon Franklin - 24/06/04
Don't be fooled by this guy. He's been rattling on about the "evils of Open Source" since about the same time last year. Check out this article from August 2003 and you'll see that he has huge fundamental misunderstandings of Open Source:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=616
Most notably, he's YET ANOTHER one of these people who doesn't understand that "free of cost" and "open source" are not synonyms. What this guy is is an anti-open source zealot.
I tracked down some links he posted online last year to his company website. If anybody's interested:
http://www.siliconchic.com/
I also found this analysis online about one of Mr. Healy's past online postings:
"The paper itself is a pile of rubbish, full of straw man arguments and unsupported assertions. It also appears to be a retread of Healy's "Support for open source software is based on several misconceptions" from last fall. Healy is credited as "a research software engineer and also a policy researcher with Aus-Innovate" though as far as I can tell Aus-Innovate is just a mailing list. In sum, move along here, nothing to see."
I, myself, could find NO evidence of what this "Aus-Innovate" is. In fact, I found many articles online written by him (mainly ranting against Open Source software in any form), and in all of them he claims to be a "policy researcher with Aus-Innovate" but there is NEVER any information provided about what exactly that means or why we should care.
Most amusingly, in this older article by him:
http://www.infoage.idg.com.au/index.php?id=1351725504&fp=131072&fpid=0
...he rails on about how the FTA will allow Indian Outsourcing to destroy the softare industry in Australia! Anybody get a sense that every answer is the wrong one with Mr. Healy?
Just remember...before you buy into what an author like this claims, research who he is and what he stands for. Google is your Friend.
» Report offensive content
2
Pia Smith - 25/06/04
Indcredible, I wonder how much he was paid for this piece of misleading propoganda.
The fact is that many of the issues affect all software developers in Australia, and several other markets. Taking on the US patents system, which grants such trivial patents as the method of double-clicking (Microsoft) is more dangerous to Software Development companies in Australia than Open Source. A company is much more easy to sue, and if you are not a big company with a strong patents profile, then you are toast. Anti-circumvention has been used in the US to sue after-market printer cartridge companies and universal remote companies, as both of the devices supposedly circumvent the access regimes of their respective devices. Ridiculous behaviour, the US DMCA became quite quickly an anti-competitive tool companies were throwing at each other. The FTA is based, sometimes word for word on the DMCA, rather than our own local implementation the DAA. This is hardly sensible, seeing our own more tame DAA has had negative reviews, and concerns raised.
The Open source community is saying that this is untested and immature legislation. I think it is not too much to ask that we not be locked into such legislation is a long-term, Free Trade Agreement with another country in which we are not free, as a country to change our own legislation if it proves to be to our detriment.
Anyone saying otherwise, is basically happily locking the entire Australian ICT industry, not just Open Source, into a cell. A cell that is neither of our own creation, nor under our control, nor even as yet fully defined.
» Report offensive content
3
Ricardo Mardisich - 25/06/04
The FTA is Xmas Microsoft in Oz!
If that agreement succeeds, will have a Mircosoft Police state imposed on the general public.
Yes, HIGHER & EVER HIGHER COSTS< LOW SECURITY< & GET THIS ---- ((((NO COMPETITION)))))!!!!!!
They attack open source with a hidden agenda, MS believes this world can only have one software Corporation, MS!
» Report offensive content
4
Tim Hoad - 25/06/04
This article is ill-informed and offers insubstantial arguments based on intuition, not information.
The argument regarding the Skylarov case, for example, is moot. Whether or not Skylarov's software was developed for commerical purposes is irrelevant. The fact is, that if an individual wished to modify content to make it available to the blind, he or she could be dreaking the law, even if they had legitimate rights to access the content (in text form, for example).
Anti-circumvention laws (such as DMCA) would be a big mistake for Australia, as they encourage monopolistic behavior. Anti cicumvention laws would enable, for example, motor vehicle manufacturers to incorporate copyright software in vehicle systems, protected by tamper-resistant mechanisms. It would then be illegal to reverse-engineer these systems, which could prevent thrid-parties from being able to service the vehicles, or supply compatible parts. The manufacturer would then be free to charge inflated prices for parts and service.
Similarly, it would be illegal to modify a DVD player to play discs that you have legally purchased in another country. Copyright was never intended to be region-specific. What if this goes to the next level, and you are unable to play CDs that you bought in another state, or even another suburb? This sounds like a great way to force people to buy five or six copies of the same content.
There is also an argument about open source being bad for business. The argument that Google demonstrates evidence to the contrary is refuted. The reality is that Google relies heavily on open-source software. Their search systems run on a heavily customised Linux operating system - this is required to achieve fault-tolerance and scalability. Existing commercial operating systems do not provide the features that Google requires, and for a start-up to develop an OS from scratch for this kind of application is intractable. Google would not exist without open source.
Healy also suggests that open-source software is somehow against the spirit of copyright. Copyright is intended to protect the interests of the developers of IP. If they believe that their interests are best served by the GPL or another open-source license, that should be respected. I would like to know the author's position on other licenses, such as the BSD license, which allows derivative works to be distributed commercially without source code.
Healy also claims that lengthening of copyright period is acceptable. In most situations, this would simply result in out-of-print works remaining inaccessible for longer. Very few copyright works remain profitable for more than 10-15 years, and most go out of circulation. By lengthening the period of protection, these works are essentially lost to society. You wouldn't burn down an art gallery just because it's no longer profitable - the works have a value far greater than the monetary one.
While I appreciate that IP protection is important, it is critical that Australia considers all the implications very carefully. Perhaps the best thing for this country would be a compromise. For example, if copyright were to lapse if a work is out of circulation, or if a renewal fee were payable every 20 years, this may ease the problems that I outlined above.
It is crucial that we consider what is best for this country, rather than simply following the laws laid down by another country.
» Report offensive content
5
Allan Cairns - 25/06/04
How many times does it have to be said - the GPL is all about copyright - the right of an author to determine what can be done with their work! If I choose to release a piece of code I developed under the GPL that is my right under EXISTING copyright law.
I grow tired of the so-called 'viral' nature of the GPL. If you do not want your work to be GPL'd then DO NOT use existing GPL'd code in your work! If this were proprietary code then you would not be allowed to re-use it in the first place. You would be forced to build from scratch. Try asking Microsoft if you can take their source code and use it to make something new and see how far you get.
The moral of the story - you go your way and I'll go mine. You can create your own proprietary software and release it under whatever licence you choose and I will defend your right to do so. Please accord me that same respect.
» Report offensive content
6
Socrates - 25/06/04
How Open Source creates jobs in Ausralia:
from:
http://wiki.openskills.net/OpenSkills/AU-OSEG+Does+FOSS+create+jobs%3F
In the software world, there are 3 main ways to generate jobs.
One is to create a product and sell it. Australia has historically not be very successful in this area. In fact, we are getting worse. 20 years ago, there were more locally developed packaged or turn-key software solutions we built and sometimes exported. Nowdays, there are few such Australian software producers. Almost all the software is imported. Various estimates exist which peg our yearly software importation bill at around $3 billion.
Another way to generate jobs related to software is to hire programmers for your organisation or business. This is in fact around how 95% of software developers globally get paid to work. In Australia, they work as contractors and full employees for government, universities and business.
Finally, there are also software jobs for IT services firms which create custom or bespoke applications or systems for clients. Australia has a fairly solid industry of thousands of firms building such systems.
Now let's look at some other issues.
Offshore outsourcing is becoming an increasinly serious threat to local IT jobs. The more work that goes offshore, the less work for local IT resources.
One of the reasons that the use of Offshore outsourcing is increasing is that production of software costs too much to produce from scratch and is also quite likely to be late in delivery or not-delivered at all due to increasing system complexity.
Use of Open Source software can ameliorate many of the risks involved in creating software, because by basing systems and software on pre-existing Open Source architectures or components, one is using something we know works, reducing development-time and risk in the process.
Increasing this style of development should have positive impact by reducing the cost of performing such work in Australia, reducing the amount of work being offshored. This will help cement local jobs and keep an active critical-mass of skills and solutions firms here in Australia.
We buy too much of our software from overseas.
Which means that few local software development jobs exist for creating new solutions or gluing together components for selling into local markets. Most of the design, testing, coding and project management skills are from overseas.
Some of the reasons for this situation are historical. Australia has never been good at marketing its innovation. It has also in past made mistakes in terms of running larger businesses which may have had a chance of competing globally. Also, our government and larger firms have often eschewed local suppliers for foreign suppliers for cultural reasons. Some of these reasons relate to cultural cringe, some are more concrete concerns, specicially to do with risk-aversness, i.e local suppliers are more likely to go out of business, taking their software product IP and codebases with them. Because of this, many buyers preffered to buy product from companies they believed would be around for the long-haul, which often meant foreign companies. Open Source helps level the playing field for local firms, both in terms in reducing cost and time-to-market for commercial product development, as well as removing the threat of local products becoming evolutionary dead-end, as their source code is now open and buyers can rest assured that these products can be used for the long-haul, even if the originating firm has long ceased trading.
The more money that goes into software licences, the less available for other things.
IT budgets for most organisations are not infinite. In fact, many have been reduced in recent years and the trend is towards tighter fiscal management.
There are certain things that It buyers cannot avoid:
Hardware: we need computer hardware to run IT in any organisation. This cannot be avoided.
P
» Report offensive content
7
Tony Healy - 25/06/04
The OSEG piece on jobs is typical open source cant. What is the source for the figure that "95% of software developers globally get paid to work?" Hint: I am not aware of any source for any figure remotely like that.
Apart from that, many custom development firms possess and use IP. That is, their own source code. This contributes to better software delivered faster and better.
Open source is fundamentally a derivative process that trails several years behind innovators. It is an anti-industry. That's why it deserves no protection.
» Report offensive content
8
Tony Healy - 25/06/04
Whoops. I didn't realise that would be an anonymous post. The last one was from the author of the article above, me.
» Report offensive content
9
Adam Salter - 25/06/04
Nobody forces anybody to release code under GPL (or other "Free" licences... BSD, LGPL or roll your own.)
I find "Open-source" software benefits me greatly as a small business developer.
I am glad to build on other peoples work and am even allowed to copyright my code and/or release it under dual licences.
I can derive money from dual licencing, get my name in lights (my name still appears in all my copyright material) and charge for services... all without having to pay another company for purchase of their expensive software.
I, an Australian born Australian citizen, have benefited greatly from "Open-source".
Once again there is no coercion. You are free not to benefit and... write your own "closed-source" kernel to compete with Linux, for example. Or write your own "closed-source" scripting language to compete with PHP.
Where is the down-side? Honestly?
... Unless you are over-charging for services and scared that you will have to "compete" with community developed software.
Competition in the computer industry, what will the world come to?
» Report offensive content
10
Brandon Franklin - 25/06/04
I think Tony's own comment just revealed why he shoudn't be taken too seriously.
"Open source is fundamentally a derivative process that trails several years behind innovators. It is an anti-industry. That's why it deserves no protection."
That's just incredible...How can somebody who spends so much time ranting about Open Source have NO IDEA what goes on in the Open Source community?
Tony, take a look at http://www.sourceforge.net and try to convince yourself that of those 80,000+ projects, they are all "derivative" and "deserve no protection".
Doug Lea's thread concurrency package for Java was Open Source...and now it's part of Java because it was so good. Does that tell you it was working "against the industry"?
How has MySQL AB (http://www.mysql.com) built a business on something anti-industry? Your assertions fall flat in the face of mounting evidence that disproves them.
And the very, very simple fact that ONE CAN SELL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE completely makes your "it's an anti-industry" claim not only invalid but patently absurd. If you cannot defend that statement with any kind of logical basis, then it must be considered invalid and therefore you must be assumed to concede on that point.
Oh, and by the way, your assertion that copyright is intended to benefit the copyright owners is flat wrong. In the United States, at least, HERE is what Copyright was created for:
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/events/courses/1996/cmwh/Copyright/origin.html
For a "policy researcher", you don't seem to do much research.
» Report offensive content
11
Tony Healy - 25/06/04
I would like to clarify one thing. My concern is not whether people use public software ( Linux) et al. I made that clear in my Online Opinion piece last year, my Senate submission and my letter to parliamentarians. If every corporation and govt dept switches to Linux under their own choice, that's fine by me.
My concern is the call by many elements of the open source movement for source code generally to be disclosed. True innovators are just not going to do that, whether they speak out on internet forums or not.
» Report offensive content
12
Paul Gittings - 25/06/04
Mr Healy get's it all wrong in this article. He seems to equate open-source with freeloading and anti-IP.
IMHO, freeloading is the stealing of IP products/services services which are copyrighted. This is clearly wrong. And Mr Healy is very untruthful in trying to link open-source with this criminal behaviour.
Open source is a system where by the producers have decided it is in their best interests to make the source/product freely available (various copyrights/copylefts and what have you will place constraints on what you can can't do with the product). In other words they have voluntary given up all or some of their IP rights to the product. This is their choice and Mr Healy might not like it, especially if it's a competing product to one of his, but as producers it is their right.
So in the market place we now have products which are "open-source" and those which are not. Consumers then make a choice as to which they use, based on many criteria. And it should always be remembered that open-source does not alway mean without cost.
As a professional developer I make use of both open-source and propriatry solutions. There are usually many reasons for my choice, including but limitied to cost.
I also make sure that any propriatry product I use (be it commerical or shareware) I pay for. I also have contributed, in a small way, to open-source projects in the form of cash, time and code.
I use what I need to, to get the job done. My use of open-source is not free loading, it is not criminal, it's not even un-Australian. It's just the smart thing to do.
» Report offensive content
13
Paul Gittings - 25/06/04
"open source activists and other copyright opponents " Mr Healy should note that not all open-source activists are copyright opponents.
They do not suggest that we all go out and freely copy copyrighted material. They simply suggest that there are other ways to do business.
Obviously there are those industries that can's see how to compete or partake in the new market place. These industries will of course see open-source as "anti-industry" or at least anti-their-industry.
» Report offensive content
14
Paul Gittings - 25/06/04
Mr Healy said "My concern is the call by many elements of the open source movement for source code generally to be disclosed. True innovators are just not going to do that, whether they speak out on internet forums or not."
This is incorrect on a number of fronts:
- most in the open-source community no longer care if others don't disclose their code. And despite Mr Healy's attempts most respect to claim otherwise most respect Copyright and IP.
- "True innovators", rather than maketing types, do open their source, most Universities, and Doctral students do - the only truly invoate work been done. Commerical programming, like most commerical ventures, as we all know is derivative of some kind be it from the look, function, api or code.
» Report offensive content
15
Norman Howlett - 25/06/04
Another example of socialism at work here in Australia. Open Source has proven in the States to creates jobs, innovative new products and oportunity. It has created a substantial economic growth and offered a better solution to the end consumer than the traditional concept of software development and distribution.
This article should be viewed only as a "Propaganda" designed to instill fear into those who will not research the topic and make up there own minds. Its another example of how the biased media are trying to manipulate there audience with opinions and scare tatics.
The open source software model works better for the developer and the end user. There are many examples online demonstrating conclusively the benifit of "Open Source Software". As with every point of view - only a fool listens to only one side of an argument.
I do hope that those few with a hidden agenda do not steer this country in the wrong direction as it will miss out on participating in another great oportunity
» Report offensive content
16
Tony Healy - 25/06/04
If universities were running software development, we would still be using $15,000 Unix machines with black screens.
» Report offensive content
17
Brandon Franklin - 25/06/04
And if Linus hadn't donated his code for Linux to the community for free, how much would we be paying?
Yeah, Linux sure did harm the economy. My goodness. What a terrible result that has had!
And as we know, developing Linux has been an anti-industry action, right? That's why so many web servers run on it, doing all that e-commerce. Because, you know...Linux is Anti-Progress and Anti-Commerce. Yes, our futures would be much better if controlled by the likes of honorable folks such as the SCO Group. They are The Real INNOVATORS!
You're not refuting any points, Tony. You're just adding on sillier claims. It betrays the weakness of your arguments.
» Report offensive content
18
Peter T - 25/06/04
"Google is thus a good example of the merits of the commercial model for software, not open source."
by Sridhar Harnur
"It is probably safe to say that search engine Google, with the number of its Linux servers approaching 6,000, is banking heavily on the Linux operating system to keep this engine chugging along. The number of Google's Linux servers is expected reach 10,000 by the end of this year."
Somebody tell Tony Linux is Open Source!!
» Report offensive content
19
TX - 25/06/04
If universities were running software development, that $15,000 Unix machine would have 100 terminals attached to it.
» Report offensive content
20
anonymous - 25/06/04
'If universities were running software development, we would still be using $15,000 Unix machines with black screens.'
Which commercial entity developed the protocols and reference implementations that you are using to spout this stuff?
Which commercial entity developed X, the underlying system that provides a GUI for Unix and Unix like systems (commercial and non)?
» Report offensive content
21
anonymous - 25/06/04
'If universities were running software development, we would still be using $15,000 Unix machines with black screens.'
Which commercial entity developed the protocols and reference implementations that you are using to spout this stuff?
Which commercial entity developed X, the underlying system that provides a GUI for Unix and Unix like systems (commercial and non)?
» Report offensive content
22
Rodd CLakson - 25/06/04
Thanks for taking the time to characterize open source developers, including myself, as freeloaders and miscreants.
You say:
Open source activists nowadays stress that they love and support copyright. Technically they are correct; they use copyright to force restrictions on downstream users.
You couldn't be more wrong. You're confusing copyright and the particular license(s) I choose to apply to my copyrighted materials.
Copyright simply recognizes that I created the things I created and that as such I have a certain rights with regard to how the things I create are used. To presume that this means that I shouldn't share my creations because it's copyrighted is just madness.
You share your copyrighted materials, or more accurately you licenses them in exchange for money. I do the same thing, I'm just more willing to share my property than you are, so while you only grant access to the finished binary, I'm happy to share the source code too. It's mine (copyright has granted me that) and I can use it as I wish.
Don't confuse copyright with the GPL, the LGPL, the BSD license or other open source licenses. These simply indicate how I'm willing to use my copyrighted creations. In the case of the GPL or LGPL I'm saying that you can benefit from what I've done, but you need to share what you do to my creation if you hand my works on. (The GPL doesn't even require that you share those changes with me, only that you grant the same rights to others I've granted to you).
The BSD license grants you to right to use my code as you see fit, except that you have to acknowledge my contributions. Even Microsoft has benefited from BSD licenses code (the TCP/IP stack for example) and has to acknowledge the contributions of the people who own that copy right.
You too use a special license that states how you're willing to share (or not share) your own works. I can't say how liberal your license is, or how well it meets the needs of other (particularly those people who use your products), but the license you use doesn't impact on the fact that you own copyright on your works, and the licenses I choose don't either.
Before you continue to slander open source developers, take the time to download something under these licenses and consider the implications of the license on copyright.
For example all of my code (under either GPL or LGPL) includes a statement of copyright, along with a statement on how you my use my copyrighted works.
Copyright was never intended to be interpreted as something that can't be shared. In fact, in a way I don't share my copyrighted works, I trade them for others in the same way that you trade your for cash. The difference is I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants and allow them to stand on my shoulders, than to stifle progress by limiting access to my works and forcing someone to recreate them before moving forwards.
That's one of the reasons why open source development is leaving proprietary models in the dirty (and probably why you feel so scared about the implications of open source on your works). Open source doesn't force me to reinvent the wheel, but allows me to get on with the job of using the wheel for something else. Proprietary models, on the other hand, force different development teams to develop the same code as each other, instead of doing something new.
This doesn't mean that open source don't duplicate itself, after all, some people are just scratching a personal itch, and other think they can do better. Many are wrong, but some are right, and we take another step forward. On the other hand, while closed source developers do share access to binaries, they remain beholden to the API's of others, rather than moving forward at their own pace. And in many cases, products that have already been done, are rewritten, not because someone thinks they can do better, but because without that code they can't move to the next stage.
If th
» Report offensive content
23
anonymous - 25/06/04
Do some research before you swallow this guys opinion.
Re: 'Aus-Innovate'
"... despite the impressive sounding name that's suggestive of it being some kind of think-tank or business incubator, it's actually a one-man mailing list hosted at siliconchic.com. Silicon CHiC is Tony Healy's commercial software company. His views have been extensively rebutted ..."
» Report offensive content
24
Philip Stephens - 25/06/04
Tony, your grasp of the GPL is very slim. I think you need to read the GPL more closely, not to mention brush up on your understanding of copyright law
Copyright law gives the author of a work the exclusive right to decide who publishes their work, and under what conditions. Arguing that an open source developer should not be permitted to publish their source code under a license that lets anyone else publish it as well is hyprocritical.
Indeed, every proprietary software company takes advantage of copyright law to license their source code to other companies while compelling them to keep the source code secret, keep all derivative works equally secret, and not to sublicense the source code or derivatives to anyone else.
The GPL only imposes one condition, and that's to license any derivative works under the GPL. That is the right of the original copyright holder: after it, it's their code that is being used to create derivative works. If you don't like the license, you have absolutely no right under copyright law to create a derivative of a copyrighted work. This is true irrespective of the license or contract the copyright work is released under.
As for the publishing of source code, there is no law against that. Publishing source code doesn't automatically put it into the public domain. After all, most classes of copyrighted works (books, music, films) have to be published in order to have any value whatsoever. As it turns out, there is a growing number of people who believe that publishing source code also increases it's value.
If Australian software companies fear being put out of business because they can't compete with "free" open source software, then the answer is obvious: they need to get off their collective butts and start writing software that people are willing to pay for. If open source software is as inferior as you seem to believe it is, then this ought to be easy for software companies to pull off. It's not the role of government to prop up failing businesses, no matter why they fail.
» Report offensive content
25
Adam Crow - 25/06/04
Tony's article did not correlate to our own Australian development experience.
Open Source is a formal title given to successful software development practices that have existed for years.
Formalising the technique is making it more efficient in delivering software to the world.
I don't understand why a professional industry observer would seek to mislead readers about the actual compsition of OSIA.
» Report offensive content
26
Lars Olsson - 25/06/04
This is very amusing!
"My concern is the call by many elements of the open source movement for source code generally to be disclosed. True innovators are just not going to do that, whether they speak out on internet forums or not." (post from Tony Haly to talkback)
Interesting. Tony Healy is obviously unaware of the invention he uses to share his misconceptions - the "world wide web". Or as Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of this technology put it, "This code, like all my WWW code and later W3C has always been publicly available". So, yet another of your arguments that are terribly wrong.
Rather amusing. He doesn't even know the very basics of the technology under his fingers.
Hahaha!
» Report offensive content
27
Urzumph - 25/06/04
Tony Healy :
I have trouble believing that an Australian could write that. Paid Shrill or no. Go back to Redmond.
» Report offensive content
28
Russell - 25/06/04
For someone who is so against open-source, why is this site powered by it (Apache and PHP)?
Sure, this might not be /your/ site, but by writing articles for it, you're certainly showing plenty of support: for both Builder AU and open-source.
» Report offensive content
29
John Jacq - 25/06/04
In my experience, the freeloaders are usually found in the proprietary software camp. How many times has Microsoft been found guilty of having incorporated someone else's software, illegally, in their OS? Too many to count. So who is free loading?
If I write some software and release it under a BSD or GPL license, it's my business since I own the copyright. And since the license authorises people to modify my software to suit themselves, I don't see why this makes them "freeloaders". They're only following the terms of the license :^)
I only trust code where I can see the source and where it is free, regardless how much money I have to pay for it.
And I believe MS is one of the least trustworthy corporation in the world, only SCO rates lower. They're the freeloaders.
» Report offensive content
30
Hacker - 25/06/04
The primary purpose of copyright is to promote creation, not to enrich tho owners of copyright! So, when you say:
----------------------
But in practice, the movement is an undermining of copyright. Open source uses copyright to strip the benefit from the creator, rejecting the original intent of copyright.
----------------------
You are simply showing that you have absolutely no idea what the purpose of copyright is. In the light of real intent of copyright, open source/free software is doing more for promote creation that any other system currently available on this planet. Live with that.
» Report offensive content
31
Hacker - 25/06/04
Please stop posting drivel like this:
---------------
My concern is the call by many elements of the open source movement for source code generally to be disclosed. True innovators are just not going to do that, whether they speak out on internet forums or not.
---------------
You are only showing that you have no idea whatsoever how software is developed. And by the way, the only reason why most proprietary software nowadays is closed source is that fact that technology allows this to happen. What are you going to suggest next: closed source books?
If you ever wrote any useful software, you would know that 90% or more of the functionality is provided by software other than yours. Without having access to the source code, your engineering will be limited to whatever others allowed you to see. Ever wondered why it is much easier for Microsoft to write good applications for Windows than for any other company? It is because they have access to the ultimate documentation - the source code.
Stop embarrassing yourself, please. It is embarrassing to read.
» Report offensive content
32
Hacker - 25/06/04
After reading the following pearl, I'm now 100% convinced that you're an idiot:
-------------------
If universities were running software development, we would still be using $15,000 Unix machines with black screens.
-------------------
» Report offensive content
33
Hacker - 25/06/04
> Open source is fundamentally a derivative process that trails several years behind innovators. It is an anti-industry. That's why it deserves no protection.
Innovators? Who would that be, Microsoft? Let me see. I have a number of Linux machines on my network and I don't need any anti-virus software for them. And yet, I have to run ClamAV to scan all mail for thousands of e-mails every day infected with viruses that are coming from this "innovative" software called Windows. The software that is beyond joke and the technology that was mostly purchased from others and almost never developed in-house.
And if you mean by "innovators" the Unix folks (and by that I don't mean SCO), I'm sorry to break it to you, but that thing was done using open source (it just wasn't called that in those days).
Finally, every software development is fundamentally a derivative process. But you wouldn't know that because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO WRITE SOFTWARE. So please, leave to the rest of us. We do know how to do it and we don't need your useless advice.
Of course open source is anti-industry. It is anti industry which has a monopoly with US$40G in the bank, made through dubious practices. Here is a hint: software is not about the industry, it is about the users. If users can get good software cheaper, that is exactly what is going to happen. If the "industry" needs to slim down a bit (and it is obese at the moment, believe you me), it'll be better for it in the long run anyway.
» Report offensive content
34
Richard Corfield - 25/06/04
Preventing reverse engineering for compatibility in the DMCA a good thing?
The author almost argues that interoperability is a good thing, so good that of course manufacturers of office products want to make their products read their competitor's formats. The flip side of that is that its in your interests to do whatever you can to prevent yourcompetitors reading your formats, and the DMCA helps to achieve that as has never been achieved before.
The new craze for patenting file formats is another nail in the vendor lockin coffin. If we try to draw parallels in the physical world, we get notions so silly that they're laughable.
The argument about stopping online game cheats is just weak. If cheating is bad, then braeking the law to do it isn't going to make it less attractive. The complexity of cheating should hinder most people. Even if the DMCA does have an effect - stopping game cheats is no suitably benefit to justify destroying competition and innovation by locking up file formats.
» Report offensive content
35
Jeroen van Iddekinge - 26/06/04
Mr Tony Healy.
Beside the fact opensource is good or bad get used to it. It doesn't matter how eager you spread your fud, opensource doesn't go away.
Society, culture and social structures changes. That is a fact of live. Afcourse in some way it is possible to control those changes, but in most cases you need to adapt to it. Isn't it strange that large cooperation like IBM,SUN and afcourse many other companies embracing opensource?
Some big Dinosourus like you ,microsoft, rob enderle, kenneth brown et al can't cope with changes.
You learned about Galileo? How the catholic church insisted that the earth was flat? Now you are like the catholic church
Do you know what funny is? It is amazing how much linus torvald,linux and opensource changes I.T.,techonologie and society. You not. Maybe you write some more hysterical crab like this...but it is compleetly irrelevant for history.
» Report offensive content
36
Nick - 26/06/04
Is the author an australian? I do not think so. How can you say, that it is OK to through away 1.2 Billion, as it is a negative disbalance for AU. What is Australian population? How much will it be per person per year.
In non GNU world it aren't easy to have a startup with reasonable amount 1-5K. Probably, impossible.
So, there will be less new AU's IT companies. So, disbalance will only increase for AU.
This author does not care. How to you give citizenship to these people?
» Report offensive content
37
nobody - 26/06/04
I find it unsettling and difficult to believe an author that choose not to provide a references to all the links in his writing. (See missing Lessig Free Culture link in Reference Section but the availability of his critic's link. ) This questions his credibility: is he worry that he is found out that he is misquoting others?
» Report offensive content
38
Malcolm Andrews - 26/06/04
What a shill for Microsoft. This guy has absolutely no idea and to think that he has input into "a senate inquiry". When I listen to "feral politicians" talk about IT, I cringe and think to myself "my God these people have no idea what they are talking about". Try listening to parliament sometime and your will hear what I mean or watch a “Senate Estimate Committee” hearing http://www.aph.gov.au/live/webcast1.asp# and see what I am talking about.
Just look at our previous Minister for NOIE, and ask yourself why is he characterised as the "World Greatest Luddite". Search for this on Google!
The IT industry is too important to be left in the hands of these people.
As for copyright fostering innovation, look at the IT industry in Australia and ask yourself why is it that most of the university graduates end up getting employment as minders of Microsoft systems. Do they write software NO! Technicians that mind MS software do NOT INNOVATE!
Also ask yourself, why was Bill Gates treated like royalty by the Feral Government when he last visited Australia.
Just one final comment. If it weren’t for open source then TH would not even be able to publish his diatribe.
» Report offensive content
39
Malcolm Andrews - 26/06/04
What a shill for Microsoft. This guy has absolutely no idea and to think that he has input into "a senate inquiry". When I listen to "feral politicians" talk about IT, I cringe and think to myself "my God these people have no idea what they are talking about". Try listening to parliament sometime and your will hear what I mean or watch a “Senate Estimate Committee” hearing http://www.aph.gov.au/live/webcast1.asp# and see what I am talking about.
Just look at our previous Minister for NOIE, and ask yourself why is he characterised as the "World Greatest Luddite". Search for this on Google!
The IT industry is too important to be left in the hands of these people.
As for copyright fostering innovation, look at the IT industry in Australia and ask yourself why is it that most of the university graduates end up getting employment as minders of Microsoft systems. Do they write software NO! Technicians that mind MS software do NOT INNOVATE!
Also ask yourself, why was Bill Gates treated like royalty by the Feral Government when he last visited Australia.
Just one final comment. If it weren’t for open source then TH would not even be able to publish his diatribe.
» Report offensive content
40
Chaos Lord Cataboligne - 27/06/04
"Put slightly differently, without a system of intellectual property rights it is difficult to prevent free riding by those who did not contribute to the original investment."
Excellent idea...so how do we stop the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, SCO, etc.?
Compute free, Die well
Chaos Lord Cataboligne.
» Report offensive content
41
boni david - 28/06/04
When I developed our community website portal, I didn't have to spend a lot of money to create the portal website. All of the software that were used are open source (GNU/Linux, Apache Web Server,PHP script, MySQL database and MAMBO Content Management System). Using these software to a small business industry who wants to deliver their product through an internet is a good alternative than copyright software. Open source software is not bad for Australia. It definitely keep Australian developers more intuitive and innovative because there are lots of open source software which are better or of good quality than the copyright software. Take the case of GNU/Linux, Apache Web Server and TOMCAT, MySQL database to name a few. A software professional can build a quality enterprise application based on these open source software.
I have worked in IT industry for the past 20 years and handled lots of copyright and closed software.
If I will choose to work in an environment where closed and open source software are being utilised, I will work in an open source without hesitation.
I hope Tony Healy will come to his senses because open source software is not bad for Australia.
Open Source Software is FREE... as in FREEDOM!
» Report offensive content
42
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
I don't have time to read all these, but this is a quick response to my not referencing Lessig. The reason for that is that the guy and his work are so well known they form a backdrop.
» Report offensive content
43
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
Message to Luke - Luke, where do you work and what's your phone number? I would be happy to meet with you. You are quite wrong to say that no-one over 35 cares about our trade deficit. People of that age group, inlcuding me, are trying to do things about it.
If you think open source will fix the problem, you've been had.
» Report offensive content
44
Bojan Smojver - 28/06/04
Just review the quote from your text below carefully:
"In 2002 - 03, Australia paid royalties and licence fees of $1.82 billion to the rest of the world, while receiving royalties and licence fees of $618 million, according to ABS figures cited in a report prepared for the Australian Parliamentary Library."
Australia is out of pocket in the amount of $1.2 billion (that's a number with 9 zeros people) and you're saying that strong copyright, DMCA style, is good for us? OK, let's leave that aside... Just look at you average computer in any business, big or small, or any household. If you find 1 in 10 software titles to be Australian, I'll concede any argument you wish to present. However, you'll find that this ratio is more likely to be 1 in 100. Which gives? We're paying through the nose for all those licence fees, straight into the hands of wealthy U.S. corporations.
When you make an argument "for Australia", please don't make it an argument for "proprietary software industry of Australia" - these are not nearly the same. Contrary to your belief, these two do not share the same interests.
This part of you discussion shows particular ignorance of free software and its licensing:
"In practice the movement is an undermining of copyright. Open source uses copyright to strip the benefit from the creator, rejecting the original intent of copyright. It relies on the original drafters of copyright never imagining that beneficiaries of copyright would use it to deny benefits to themselves. This is particularly so with the notorious GPL."
First of all, GPL absolutely requires copyright in order to work. If Australia didn't have copyright law, GPL licensing would not be possible. I hope you're not trying to pin existence of copyright on free software folk. They don't like it (although they don't break it, because they are law abiding people), but they didn't invent either.
Second, GPL is "pooling of copyright", which is what upsets you and other proprietary software proponents quite a bit. While you have to pay licence fees to get you hands on other people's techology, the rest of us that choose free software can do all this for nothing. That's why our software is way cheaper, apart from being generally better engineered and more reliable. You see, there is nothing you can do to stop this. Just like I can decide to share my car with someone, I can also share my copyrighted work with someone, if it's to our mutual benefit.
When you say:
"Patents for business processes are one area where I believe caution is warranted. In software, there’s not really any need for them, and they can allow freeloaders to improperly profit from the work of software developers, just as open source does."
You are quite correct when it comes to patents. Not only is there no need for software patents, there are in fact against the law (commissioner is not allowed to issue patents that are against any law, and yet software patents kill copyright quite effectively and nobody is seeing this), not to mention that they are equivalent of patenting of a book of mathematics (software is text, last time I checked, and that's exactly why it can be copyrighted). One thing I don't like here is this "freeloader" association. Would you please explain to me how exactly am I improperly profiting from anyone by developing, using or distributing free software? The licences of free software EXPLICITLY ALLOW me to do those things (i.e. I'm respecting other people's copyrights), so what on earth are you talking about?
Contrary to what you may believe, we in the free software community will continue to write software (and place it in our copyrighted pool) and yes - we will eat your lunch (eventually). There is no way around this. Our software is reliable, secure and most importanty, we have all the time in the world to write it. There is no sales budget to be met. In the end, users (that would be people of Australia) will like us for it because they'l
» Report offensive content
45
boni david - 28/06/04
Thanks Brandon for your good research! I have nothing more to say to Mr Healy's commentary.
» Report offensive content
46
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
Bojan, how do you think Australia will improve our deficit by giving away software?
And yes, you're right that users will love you if you give them cheap software. They will love you if you do free gardening for them too.
As I mentioned above, I don't believe free software will move forward in the way its proponents believe. It's an unstable proposition. Windows has been competing against free software for a decade, but people still pay for it.
There is lots more innovation ahead, and even young university students will start to realise it's not in their interests to give their work to big business.
» Report offensive content
47
Bojan Smojver - 28/06/04
> Bojan, how do you think Australia will improve our deficit by giving away software?
The ratio between Australian made and foreign software on any computer in Australia is in great favour of foreign software (100 to 1 or something like that). Therefore, even if we give away some, we're set to benefit much, much more by having other stuff for free.
But that's not the biggest benefit of all. Free software allows people to learn how to write more of it. Proprietary software doesn't. I don't want my kids to be stupid drones that don't understand how computers really work.
If Microsoft has 22,000 programmers working full time, that's 220,000 hours per day (they are hard working people - I give them 10 hours a day) of development time we all pay for. If you have 220,000 programmers that develop free software and they spend 1 hour (of fun) per day, you get the same thing. I personally spend at least 2 hours every day on that (on the train to work). Do you think free software community doesn't scale to 220,000 programmers? Easy.
I suggest you subscribe yourself to some free software development list and find out the quality of those programmers. They have nowhere to hide, so they have to know their stuff. Personally, I have met many proprietary software folk that were staring at me when I mentioned some of the technologies they should use in their own software.
> And yes, you're right that users will love you if you give them cheap software. They will love you if you do free gardening for them too.
Here is the thing - if you do one garden for someone, how will that benefit the other persons' garden? Well, it won't. If you do one program and release it as free software, others can build on it. That is because software engineering is an inherently incremental process. Unless you want to claim that one can write all software from scratch in one day. That is why it makes a lot of sense to create a software development system in which others do not have to reinvent the wheel and in which entry by small developers is easy (free toolchains, free ultimate documentation - source code, free blueprints). Do not ask why people create software, they do.
> Windows has been competing against free software for a decade, but people still pay for it.
Of course they do. People want products they can get from the shelf. We'll get there with free software, just you wait. At present, great majority of people aren't even aware there are alternatives to Windows.
But claiming that Windows "has been competing with free software for a decade" is against what you said about innovation. How can the inferior free software even compete against this you beaut' proprietary thing? After all, Windows is proprietary, has all the innovation it can muster, it is most secure (hey, Bill said it himself), never crashes (yeah right) and so on.
Fact is, 10 years ago (1994), free software in terms of commercial distribution just started (e.g. Red Hat was founded in that year). Since then, free software systems have been proven not only to work, but people are considering them even in the Windows stonghold - the desktop (I'm writing this in Galeon of Fedora Core 2). We are not in a hurry - we don't have to make the budget.
> There is lots more innovation ahead, and even young university students will start to realise it's not in their interests to give their work to big business.
I'm almost 40, thanks for the compliment :-) Young Uni student, eh, that would be nice. With GPL, you don't give anything away, for one. And two, why wouldn't they? People don't write software ONLY to make money. They also do it because they like doing it. It is a challenge.
» Report offensive content
48
Wesley Parish - 28/06/04
" However the copyright battle is not really between nations, but between creators and freeloaders in all nations."
Yeah, right. Tell that to Disney and their use and abuse of the Public Domain.
And then: "In 2002 - 03, Australia paid royalties and licence fees of $1.82 billion to the rest of the world, while receiving royalties and licence fees of $618 million, according to ABS figures cited in a report prepared for the Australian Parliamentary Library."
So with copyright extension, he would extend Australia's paying those royalties for another - how many years exactly? How is that supposed to help Australia?
Then we get into the juicy stuff: "The alleged need to circumvent protection devices to make programs inter-operable or to correct errors is generally overstated for ideological reasons, and also as part of competitive marketing strategies by multinational competitors of Microsoft."
Funny, in relation to the Y2K "situation", I distinctly remember the Australian Govt. doing something along the lines of making reverse-engineering mandatory in this sort of situation for such cases. I presume it's better to have passengers dying because of uncorrected errors, than to permite software to become "unprotected" and someone lose face?
To continue: "Problems arise where government funded research is released under licences like the GPL. That work is available to everyone, but the best developers are barred from commercialising it. In this sense, licencing regimes such as the GPL hinder further innovation rather than advancing it."
Correction. Because the software licensed under the GPL has to be made available in source code if and when it is distributed, if the Govt. releases something under the GPL, and it takes off in the marketplace, it is protected by the GPL copyright notice, and any further innovation based on it and distributed - read the GPL - also falls under provisions of the GPL. So in effect the GPL fulfills the purpose of the patent regime - making innovations available to the largest possible market - the anti-trust/anti-competition regime - what is freely available may not be sequestered for use against competitors - and several other similar legal regimes designed to keep the economy healthy.
Now I start laughing: "Open source lobbyists insisted on an exemption for open source, so that open source developers could continue to be exploited. (Hahn, 2002: 5)"
He's turned himself into an defender of the rights of open source developers? Listen up, if I decide to release my own source code under one of many innumerable open source licenses, I will be doing it with the full awareness that that is precisely what I want to do. I will only regard it as exploitation if I get the copyright notices filed off a la AT&T vs BSDi, etc, where AT&T was found guilty of taking BSD-contributed software and taking the copyright notices off, thereby infringing the copyright of the Regents of the University of California. And that's how we get TCP/IP and the Internet, so if Mr Healey could explain how this happened - without the GPL being involved - I would have more trust in his longwinded complaint.
"The fact that the software runs on Linux is little more important than which brand of computer it runs on."
In a word - Uptime. Try running Google's workload on Windows 95, for pity's sakes.
This is an interesting snippet: "For example, scientists and academics share source code because it’s not central to their jobs or work. That type of software is technical and rough. It’s quite different from the highly engineered products that business and home users demand."
Yeah, right. Galileo only published his thesis because it wasn't central to his work. Darwin only published his thesis because it wasn't central to his work. Bohr, Einstein, Pauling, etc, only published their theses because they weren't central to their work. Yeah. Right.
No, as far as I can see, most scientists would see
» Report offensive content
49
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
Bojan, I agree that creating software is fun. No argument there.
It's true that we import more software than we create. But if our innovative firms were to give away their work, I don't think it would change the balance much at all. It would just mean our export capability was reduced even more.
I disagree that free software is required for learning. There are ample resources available for learning to program without requiring that the technology of successful innovation be disclosed to rivals.
I've seen plenty of oss lists and work, and that informs my views on the process. Equally, have you seen the work of top quality commercial firms? They generally aren't accessible to casual observers and politicians, which is a bit of a pity.
» Report offensive content
50
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
Wesley, I'm a defender of programmers and other creators of IP. (You wrote: He's turned himself into an defender of the rights of open source developers?)
» Report offensive content
51
Tony Healy - 28/06/04
Sydney Hacker, you seem to be arguing that access to source code is necessary for modular development. In fact, it isn't, if the underlying platform is well engineered.
Access to source code can actually be counter productive because it encourages work-around hacks that break modularity. If such access is needed, then the developers of the underlying platform are poor.
If I'm developing to a complex platform, I want it to work as advertised. I prefer to work on my application and not have to waste time debugging other peoples' work.
See my IPI paper.
» Report offensive content
52
Bojan Smojver - 28/06/04
> It's true that we import more software than we create. But if our innovative firms were to give away their work, I don't think it would change the balance much at all. It would just mean our export capability was reduced even more.
I think that's pretty simple, really. We're $1.2G out of pocket right now. By reducing the $1.8G to zero and by reducing $600M to zero, we're better off (i.e. our total balance is $0, rather than -$1.2G). Unless your own numbers aren't correct, or course.
> I disagree that free software is required for learning. There are ample resources available for learning to program without requiring that the technology of successful innovation be disclosed to rivals.
You have got to be kidding me. Go here: http://apr.apache.org/ and tell me how subpools detach themselves from parent pools. Without seeing the trick inside the source code, it would be pretty hard to know "how", you would only know that they do. Now, with this particular trick learned, do you think the average software engineering student or developer is better off or worse off? Don't answer, rhetorical.
If source code is not required for successful learning of software engineering (i.e. you can pick everything up from the docs alone), why does the source need hiding? There is nothing there that isn't in the docs, right? What's so secret about it then? Why not disclose it?
Please. I've been writing software for a while now and I know that the source IS SOFTWARE. Of course it's important for learning.
> I've seen plenty of oss lists and work, and that informs my views on the process. Equally, have you seen the work of top quality commercial firms? They generally aren't accessible to casual observers and politicians, which is a bit of a pity.
Thanks for proving my point nicely here. Yes, how am I supposed to see and learn this super-duper thing if I can't see it? How am I supposed to assess how good they really are? All I see is fancy graphics and an occasional segfault (sorry, Dr. Watson), intrusion by a buffer overflow, yet another worm/virus etc.
No, I haven't seen the work of "top quality" commercial (that would be proprietary, in fact) firms - they don't want to show me the source, remember? All I've seen is the work of some proprietary software firms. How am I supposed to conclude if they are "top" when others won't show me what they've done?
As for your observance of OSS lists and work, if you don't like the quality of some of the work (and there is shoddy stuff, no doubt), feel free to download, inspect, change and submit the patches. That's how we operate. No secrets, just lots of improvements and cooperation.
» Report offensive content
53
Wesley Parish - 28/06/04
"Wesley, I'm a defender of programmers and other creators of IP."
Nice to hear it, Tony. I personally don't have any problems with people writing proprietary software, I only have problems with people trying to force it on me - particularly as the software I use in my weekly efforts to maintain this network I'm on, Microsoft's Win98 plus MS hangers-on, is far from optimum. But it's the industry standard, and I don't own the network, so I do what I have to do. I try to make up for it though, by using and recommending F/LOSS such as Mozilla and OpenOffice.org whenever necessary.
I regard F/LOSS essential for Govt. use because of its built-in transparency - and I don't need to tell you about the '70s paranoia about ASIO to impress that on your mind, I hope.
» Report offensive content
54
Hacker - 28/06/04
Read Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 2 release notes, then try again.
» Report offensive content
55
Brandon Franklin - 28/06/04
Tony, you seem to only respond to very, very isolated points, so try responding to these three in a meaningful way. The simple fact is that if you CAN'T, then your ENTIRE ARGUMENT fails instantly.
1) Do you understand that "Free Software" does not mean it is free of cost? If you DO understand that, then how does your economic argument have ANY VALIDITY? If I can sell licenses to my software, how is this somehow me "not getting paid" for my work? Refer again to MySQL AB (http://www.mysql.com) which publishes everything under the GPL.
2) Do you understand that Open Source access doesn't just enable LEARNING about the code, but it accellerates BUILDING UPON EXISTING WORK? That increases efficiency (obviously!) and reduces time to create new innovations. If you do not understand that, then it would explain your argument. However, it would mean you are arguing from a point of ignorance.
3) You said: "Access to source code can actually be counter productive because it encourages work-around hacks that break modularity." Do you understand that with closed source products, creating work-around is the ONLY OPTION for working with API problems? How does this make the Open Source approach inferior to the closed source one? Do you believe that the more desirable solution is to simply not have the functionality you need AT ALL, rather than create a work-around?
These three questions represent cornerstone flaws in your argument. If you cannot address them, then you need to think through your argument more thoroughly.
» Report offensive content
56
Brandon Franklin - 28/06/04
Oopsie! I guess Sun is "anti-industry" now, too! Yikes!
Sun Open Sources "Looking Glass":
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39129685,00.htm
Sun Open Sources Java3D:
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=java3d-interest&F=&S=&P=24617
*cough* That pile of evidence is starting to get pretty high.
» Report offensive content
57
Bojan Smojver - 28/06/04
> If I can sell licenses to my software, how is this somehow me "not getting paid" for my work?
This is just one of the scenarios where money changes hands and developers walk away happy. Others are offers of support. Yet another software development funded by corporations that sell hardware. Yet another direct funding by clients to develop particular features. Yet another by government institutions (think SE Linux by NSA)...
But the crucial issue here is this: why is it important for the developers to get paid? Is it because of the developers themselves (i.e. to make them rich) or is it so that creation of software continues?
Whoever picks the former must be a representative of proprietary software industry. Of course they don't want this thing to die. In essence, they've been given a licence to print money, so they did. Nice for them, not so nice for the rest of us.
Whoever picks the latter is thinking of the actual purpose of software and its effect on society. The software is there the make life easier and more fun. It isn't there to make some individuals billionaires - that's just an unwanted side effect.
The current, proprietary software industry leads to a situation where software is developed at great cost to the society. And because people always try to find ways to do things cheaper, making it the way of free software is the next logical step. Just like many industries were born and died before, so will the software current industry, simply because its cost is unsustainable. Just think of all the development that had to be repeated because the source code was not reuseable. If we had general human progress work that way, we'd still be in stone age.
» Report offensive content
58
Christopher Cashell - 29/06/04
Very weak and convoluted thoughts.
I initially started writing up a very detailed response to this article, but there was just too much wrong with it, and I started losing motivation.
Suffice to say that as someone living in the US, who is under many of the very despicable things that this article is arguing for (like the DMCA, copyright extensions, etc), I urge you *not* to do it.
You'll only be hurting yourself, just as we in the US are currently (unfortunately) doing.
» Report offensive content
59
Bojan Smojver - 30/06/04
I've read again the section of your text named "Open sourcers do not really support copyright" and I have to admit that after chewing it for a few days, I still cannot understand what are you trying to argue here exactly.
First you say:
"Open source uses copyright to strip the benefit from the creator, rejecting the original intent of copyright."
As a sidenote, the intent of copyright wasn't to benefit the creator, but to encourage creation by allowing (not requiring) the creator to benefit from it. But the crux or your argument seems to be that creators are worse off with open source. Well, it's their choice, really. Nobody can force anyone to release their code as open source, not even if they are infringing on some existing open source code (compulsory licensing is not one of the remedies for copyright infrigement). Don't be fooled by Microsoft's carefully crafted and very misleading propaganda - it cannot happen.
Then you say:
"Problems arise where government funded research is released under licences like the GPL. That work is available to everyone, but the best developers are barred from commercialising it. In this sense, licencing regimes such as the GPL hinder further innovation rather than advancing it."
Best developers of that software, I would assume? Well, if there is one developer, nothing is stopping him from releasing the whole thing under a completely different licence (as long as he didn't assign copyright to someone else - if he did, it's a work for hire and the one doing the hirign has control over it). If there is more than one, on what theory should this one be able to take the whole lot (i.e. damage others) and "commercialise" it (in fact make it proprietary, which are two completely different things, BTW)? Wouldn't that be detrimental to the copyright of others? How is this argument "for copyright"? Also, how did we go from "not being able to make it proprietary" to "hinder further innovation"? Why does it automatically follow that if the software is licensed under the GPL there can be no innovation on it? These are just already made opionins that you have, not facts.
And then finally, in relation to Germany and their copyright regime, you have:
"Open source lobbyists insisted on an exemption for open source, so that open source developers could continue to be exploited."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Open source people are arguing to their own detriment? I don't think so. Seriously, show me one open source developer that is crying foul because he was coerced into releasing something under a licence he didn't choose himself (bar SCO ;-)? Are you seriously suggesting that we should have similar provisions in our copyright law (BTW, U.S. law does not)? Copyright is personal property, last time I checked. I can do whatever I want with my own property - I can even give it away. Why would the law forbid that? Next thing you know, it'll be illegal to give money to the Salvos. You are making the whole thing sound like some kind of conspiracy. The evil open source folk will poison your mind and you'll have to give them your dear copyrighted work. Where is all this hate coming from?
It is pretty simple. Copyright exists and it is property. Because we are a nation of equals, just like you can make your stuff proprietary, I can make mine free. Remove one, you have to remove the other.
» Report offensive content
60
Bojan Smojver - 12/07/04
Some really "nice" effects of DMCA can be found here:
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/LegalDocs/storagetekdmca.pdf
Do we really want that in Australia?
» Report offensive content
61
Gail - 18/08/09
Good Day. The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Benefit cosmetics business. I found only this - <a href="http://www.hockenheim-classics.de/Members/Benefit">Benefit cosmetics big beautiful eyes</a>. Such a pretty look! Looks great and simple for summer. Cosmetics anastasia aveda avon bare escentuals bath body works becca benefit. Thank you very much :mad:. Gail from Ecuador.
» Report offensive content
62
Alcott - 25/08/09
Good Day. You create your opportunities by asking for them. Help me! It has to find sites on the: We offer great, quality cosmetics and our own wonderful beauty advisors.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.hockenheim-classics.de/Members/Benefit/benefit-cosmetics-brand]benefit cosmetics brand[/URL]. Here some of their top favourites brought to you with affordable prices!! Go on. Cosmetics, toiletries hygiene products. Thanks for the help :eek:, Alcott from Scotland.
» Report offensive content
63
Kelton - 09/09/09
Hello. This blog is very informative and thanks for the updates and the blog colour and desiging is very beautiful after seeing this u must be a creative man. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: Theoretically, it often began sluggish to a energy by the circuit side.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.fh-krems.ac.at/Members/Sales]free Sales force[/URL]. Astelles sales force, he has no brand how he began also, beside him is a own banking. Lbs which include business through this consideration only sell pharmaceutical affiliates, while selecting no customer in triad, act sales force. Thank you very much ;-). Kelton from Ireland.
» Report offensive content