Derek raised some very important points in his posting re: DMCA and its effects. I noticed that you (Derek) are a Software Developer, and you stated in your posting that you would be very annoyed about someone using your "ideas" and grabbing some of your market share from the use of such ideas (perhaps in the form of a similar program etc).
Actually I'm a teacher; this was a 'what if' question. However I do develop utilities for dos/windows and netware :-) Most developers aren't in it for altruistic reasons, they're trying to earn a crust. There's a world of difference between a joint venture like open source, and someone whose livelihood depends on selling a product.
You see- for a long time I have listened to copyright protectors declaring to consumers that they need to copyright their software so that all benefit.
I agree that that's bollocks! No - were I to do this I'm protecting my personal income. But let's try another tack: Let us suppose Microsoft give away all their source for Windows XP (ahem). I download and compile it, and sell copies of XP. I would be on dodgy grounds, depending on what restructions Microsoft imposed. I download it and use the information to construct alternatives to crappy stuff like Windows Explorer. I tie that into the OS, using system hooks, and then I sell that. Fair enough, I'd have thought. Or I get a group of people to cooperate on this software, I whack it on freshmeat, and it's therefore publically available. Again, fair enough. But that's because I have a salary coming in. Then Microsoft see what I've done, like it, copy it and copyright it. Aargh.
Funny, I don't see any benefit from keeping back what amounts to "ideas" and "information" and making it "mine"--unless of course you pay the monies for me to give you a license to look at them/use them.
Ideas simply should not be copyrighted or patented.
Not that simple. I can't get people to pay for a licence for something I don't (at least in some sense) own. Redhat and Suse generate income from the 'value added' not from Linux itself. But how would Suse feel if I started copying and selling their CDs ? But Linux is open source, I say .... The open source community needs to protect code simply to ensure that control remains with the development group. This is nothing to do with restricting ideas, it's all to do with quality control. And it also prevents others (like Microsoft) from taking open source code and copyrighting/patenting it themselves. Now that would be a big issue, don't you agree? Ideas cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented. Maybe. Code should be copyrighted whether open source or not. -- ******************************************************************************** All mail sent and received may be examined to prevent transmission of inappropriate attachments and certain obscenities. Wellington College does not accept responsibility for email contents. Problems to postmaster@wellington-college.berks.sch.uk. ********************************************************************************
participants (1)
-
Grainge, Derek