Re: [Ogf-l] "Shared-Source"

[Margaret Vining]

>----- Original Message ----- >From: Skywise >Margaret Vining wrote: > >> On an ideological level you might feel that they are not part of the > >"movement" but on an economical level they are. > > >No, on an economic level all parties involved belong to the software >industry, not the open source movement. They are not the same.   My assertion is that one can no longer afford to separate the two. >Maggie, I don't think I really disagree with you; I just don't >understand your reasons for saying what you've said. You said the IRS >should rethink how it assigns NPO status for "Open Source" groups >because they have an unfair advantage over for-profit orgs, but without >looking at specific groups we can't talk about what those advantages >really are. >>   I also said that _any_ entity designed to survive in an open community has the advantage over those that don't. When I say "open community" I mean any industry that has some form of open movement taking place somewhere in that industry. >You said that Microsoft is being brought down by the Open >Source movement - which you later equate with a non-profit organization >- and that the IRS is supposed to prevent things like this, but the Open >Source movement is dozens of organizations, thousands of individuals, >and plenty of them are working for profit (and paying taxes). Many of >them aren't even American.>> Exactly. Because of the open movement we now have an American company who has to compete with NPOs and imports. Personally, I'm glad to see this kind of change in business dynamics but I'm concerned that the American economy and American business regulations are not set up to appropriately function in a world that is redefining our supply and demand system. >Red Hat, for example, makes its money by repackaging open-source >software and selling support for it. For $30 I get a nice CD and a >friendly voice to help me set up my computer. I'm not paying for the >software - it's available for free on the web. I'm paying for the >service of having it all put together for me and for calling their >support lines. Here's a for-profit company operating in the open source >sector - why should it be regulated differently than a company that >offers support in some other sector?>> It shouldn't. >The Open Source Initiative, on the other hand, doesn't sell a damn >thing. They are an advocacy and certification organization. How are >they different from other non-open source advocacy groups, say for the >energy industry or a political cause? Because their efforts are changing the business paradigm. Let's pretend that a nonprofit organization X developed some sort of cheap, renewable energy source that was easy to distribute. Now let's say that 20 years later no one used gas or oil. Companies who were designed to mine and/or sell gas will have to adapt or fail. But NPO X is now a major player in this new paradigm because they were established not to _sell_ their resource but to distribute an unlimited one. Were their initial efforts taxable? No. NPOs are not taxed for freely distributing ideas or resources, but if the business paradigm shifts so much that for-profit companies have to structure themselves exactly like an NPO then the NPO has an unfair advantage as far as the IRS is concerned. >Should they be taxed differently >because they advocate things like freedom and open sharing of >information - ideas that threaten a business model? Absolutely. Our government can't function without the taxes from for-profit businesses and it is the responsibility of our government to protect for-profit businesses from competition that comes from NPOs and imports. >Perhaps I'm just shocked by hearing someone saying that the IRS should >do something about it all. I think they should keep a close eye on things. After all the American government is a business, too. If some of its sources of income are competing with sources that don't pay taxes then I would be shocked if they didn't try to do something about it. >You're right; Microsoft is competing against more than just products. >The Shared Source idea is there because they know they will have to >become a service provider, not a manufacturer. They want to lock in >businesses and home users to 'renting' their applications instead of >licensing them. That's what .NET and Hailstorm are all about. >Microsoft knows that it has to hold on to the lock to keep making money. >They're facing much stiffer competition than they ever have before; >greater than IBM, Lotus or WordPerfect in the eighties or Netscape in >the early nineties. It's an attack on the way they've structured their >business. Yes, and that is an important point. One aspect of their business structure is greedy, inappropriate, and unethical in the eyes of many. But that doesn't mean the government is going to sit back and let the other entities go unchecked (if they are in need of checking... and I say that they are). >But you're wrong when you say it's the fault of non-profit organizations. First of all I'm not singling out NPOs but they are the most relevant. Secondly, I'm not suggesting "fault". I'm pointing out a potential change in the business paradigm and wondering how the IRS will react. >> My theory was that the open movement in the software industry >> is changing the business paradigm so much that there might be a need or >> an attempt to redefine some of the current business regulations. > > >Okay. I'll counter that the current regulations are stacked against the >open source movement. It will take an amazing amount of effort and luck >to suceed in the marketplace. I'm suggesting that they will require less effort and luck than non-open source companies. >Until we talk specifics, we're both blowing smoke. I don't think we are understanding each other. Personally, I think you have a narrow view of both open movements and I'm concerned that a debate in specifics would be unproductive. >> > The d20 license is more Shared Source than Open Source. >> >> I would say that the d20 License is more Open Source than Shared Source >> and then say that the OGL'd SRD is even better than Open Source. > > >Wow! That's *quite* a claim. I'm actually flabbergasted. Can you >explain what you mean by that? Are you saying that the OGL is better >than the GPL, or that the SRD is better than Linux, or what?>> You appear to think that if the software industry = the RPG industry, then WotC = Microsoft. I'm suggesting that history will view them as: d20/OGL= open movement, companies who don't participate = Microsoft. That is why I said, " I would say that the d20 License is more Open Source than Shared Source and then say that the OGL'd SRD is even better than Open Source." You seem to be comparing the details of the licenses (inaccurately, too, IMO). But what matters is how the open communities are effected by the presence of open vs. closed materials. In the model if WotC went "Shared- Source" then there would be no d20 SRD or STL or OGL. They would just keep doing what they have always done. Have you read all of these licenses? I am equally shocked by _your_ claims. >It's like shared source because: > > 1) Wizards retains control over an essential element of the game, > effectively preventing redistribution in a useable form. If I can > freely redistribute 95% of a product, but not 5% of it, it's not freely > redistributable. By saying "copy all but not this", Wizards retains > control of the product and prevents actual redistribution. Microsoft > keeps 5% of their codebase under wraps to prevent even the possibility > of redistribution and retain control of their product.>> That just isn't relevant in the RPG industry. Have you played many roleplaying games? > 2) Wizards locks gamers into purchasing their products. I cannot > play a d20 game without purchasing a Wizards product. I cannot develop > a Windows application without purchasing their software. I cannot even > see the code without being a major customer or partner. Sounds like > Shared Source to me. >> The OGL makes it possible to develop an RPG without buying WotC products. You may not see how, but it is possible. > 3) A stated goal of the project is to reduce the number of games on > the market. (http://wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417a) A stated > goal of shared source is to reduce the number of systems (phase 3, > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp). > Both goals are carried out by claiming "it will be better for the > individual customer." What neither points out is that it will also be > better for the last company standing.>> Which is why the IRS should get involved. Traditional for-profit companies are not designed to compete in this kind of market. ; ) >> >> I think you are confusing perspectives. What is important in one >> industry is not necessarily important in the other. What is important >> is how these two different movements change the industries they exist >> in. With that said the OGL is 100% open source as you define it. > > >So, are you saying that expanding one's brand footprint is one of those >things that is important in the software industry but not the gaming >industry?>> No. I'm saying that "brand" will be less valuable in any open community. >So, Ryan's listed as the Brand Manager in my PHB. He cites the Skaff >Effect as a major reason behind Wizards releasing their code. ("All >marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually >contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that >genre." http://wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DoD_005.asp). And the open game >movement isn't about branding? >> It doesn't matter what it is about for the people who started it. What matters is how others will be able to use it and what that use will do to the business ecosystem of that industry. >Also, please don't put words in my mouth. The OGL is not 100% open >source as I define it.>> I think it is, you just don't understand why, yet. > I strongly believe in requiring the source code > be made available in a useable form (point 2, > http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html). The PI clause of the OGL > prevents the rapid evolution that results from the feedback process of > Open Source (point three). Oh, and it restricts rights that I normally > have under US trademark law.>> This is why I don't want to debate specifics. These things are not important in this system and they don't cause problems in the ways that you think they do. Additionally, I think your statements are false assumptions. Have you ever designed or played a roleplaying game? The PI clause can't prevent rapid evolution in a system where an infinite number of parties can participate. No one _has_ to use the PI clause. PI is irrelevant. The name of the game 50 years from now will not be about PI and it won't be about trademark rights because the only things left standing will be what was kept open. If I were going to start a company I would design it to farm (and maybe even design) and distribute open game information and get as far away from product dependence and brand management as possible (unless you are WotC, of course). > I agree with Ryan when he says "there is a very, very strong business > case that can be made for the idea of embracing the ideas at the heart > of the Open Source movement and finding a place for them in gaming." I > applaud the move - I think it's great for the hobby, and great for the > industry, and great for Wizards. It's a complete reversal of what the > hobby knew before. But, like Microsoft's Shared Source, it's all about > business. I don't fool myself into thinking it's about freedom.   But this is where business and freedom unite. Businesses who are designed to function accordingly will thrive. It doesn't matter how or why the movement started. What matters is who is able to make the most use of it in the end. Maggie Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com