Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [... The FSF doesn't care about programmers ... ] > > Right. > > http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf > > (Why Not Use the GPL?) > > A programmer complaining that the FSF doesn't care about > programmers. Ho hum. As a programmer myself, I find that > the biggest hindrance in my work is lack of transparency > when I have to use third-party libraries and I can't see > what it is they're doing because I don't have their source.
Ah. (Same link as above.) ------ Generally, the notions of open-source and non-proprietary software are conflated as opposed to closed, proprietary software. However, there is no particular reason to do so. Instead, software can be categorized using two axes: an open-closed axis and a free-proprietary one.[2] The benefits accruing to open-source software are largely connected to the open-closed axis. It is the making source code available that allows the peer-review and correction feedback loop to take off. Making software proprietary does stem the flow of contributions, of course; nobody particularly wants to contribute to someone elses profit at their own cost. To offset this effect, open, proprietary software can easily provide a renumeration model, offering payment or royalties for contributions. [... VAS ...] The characteristics of VAS tends to act as a pressure against free development. The end result consists of large programs that no programmer is particularly interested in, whatever the importance is to the enduser. 7 (Notable exceptions are areas with existing bodies of amateur enthusiasts: amateur radio, astronomy, etc.) To a large extent, the patronage model breaks down, as well; the small size of the user base and the large size of the projects tends to channel patronage towards other areas. And yet VAS needs to exist, if computers are to be anything other than hobbyist toys. None of the above suggests that VAS software needs to be closed-source. The advantages of opensource VAS are still those of any other open-source software. The problem with opening proprietary VAS is simply that the producers of that software want to protect their investment. Copyright can protect the source code easily enough. Unfortunately, any piece of VAS represents a considerable amount of investment in analysis, design and algorithmics; no VAS vendor will willingly sacrifice that investment. Enter, to the sound of ominous music, THE PATENT. A patent allows the inventor of an idea (algorithm or nifty piece of design, in software terms) the exclusive right to the idea for a limited term, in exchange for the publication of the idea. Once the term expires, the idea passes into the public domain. If this description sounds familiar, its not surprising; its a form of open-source. The arguments for patents are similar to open-source arguments, as well: open publication ensures that new ideas do not get lost, that duplicated effort is avoided and that others can examine and learn from the idea. ------ regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss