LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-17-2011, 05:48 AM   #16
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 2,968

Rep: Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769Reputation: 769

Some people don't seem to know the difference between patents and copyright. You don't need to patent software to protect it: copyright does that. Anyone with any programming experience knows that it's actually implementing the algorithm that takes the hard work, and that's the bit that copyright protects.

The US Patent Office hands out patents for trivial ideas. Microsoft has a patent (never enforced) on the idea of downloading upgrades for software. They also issue patents without checking for prior art.

The system of patenting algorithms in the USA doesn't protect anyone. If you create a program incorporating a new idea, it's almost impossible to write it without infringing some patents that should never have been granted. Their owner then offers a deal to swap patent rights, so they get your good idea and you get their trivial ones.

The US courts, especially in red-neck areas with elected judges and semi-literate juries, are totally inadequate for handling such matters. Even a Supreme Court justice recently called eastern Texas a 'rogue jurisdiction'.

It always makes me laugh when I see tea-party types hailing the USA as the champion of property rights. In the world of publishing, they didn't accept international copyright until after I was born. Look at the Beatrix Potter scans in Google books: all of shoddy pirate editions in American libraries!
 
Old 07-17-2011, 06:10 AM   #17
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,540
Blog Entries: 1

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
The problem with FOSS is that it does not reward application developer
There are other rewards apart from money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
...plus the idea of relying on unpaid volunteers is dumb. Skill/work should be rewarded, and people that work on the project should be paid for it.
If everyone thought like you (ie. money focus), we wouldn't now be using most of the programs/distros. If a skilled developer thinks the FOSS model is flawed, they are free to abandon it and join MS/Apple, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
At the same time, skilled people should be able to acquire the source code and fix problem themselves instead of waiting for the next patch. Which means that there should be another license - one that will reward original developer and will be good enough for users at the same time.
I think you're making it more complicated than it should be. I don't see any problem with the existing model. Having said that, I'm not a developer so I might not see some underlying problems.
 
Old 07-17-2011, 06:28 AM   #18
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
//offtopic
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
There are other rewards apart from money.
According to my experience if programming is your job(or "main skill"), then you should not work for free - it is extremely unhealthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
I think you're making it more complicated than it should be.
Let's say you wrote a new software from scratch and decided to make it opensource. As far as I know, there is no reliable way to make any profit from writing software alone - you'll have to slap advertising onto website, provide paid support or sell manuals/merchandise, and anybody will be able to hijack your business at any moment (there's an interesting story about how paint.net became closedsource). With proprietary license you can sell actual software and focus on actually improving it. With opensource the only way to profit from it is to sell something that is not actual software you wrote. I.e. programming skill goes unrewarded.

Last edited by SigTerm; 07-17-2011 at 06:40 AM.
 
Old 07-17-2011, 06:37 AM   #19
baldy3105
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Distribution: Mint (Desktop), Debian (Server)
Posts: 875

Rep: Reputation: 184Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
The US Patent Office hands out patents for trivial ideas. Microsoft has a patent (never enforced) on the idea of downloading upgrades for software. They also issue patents without checking for prior art.
And there lies the exact problem. It isn't about protecting investment, its about calling dibs on simple ideas then using the legal system ( I hesitate to call it the justice system) to screw people over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
It always makes me laugh when I see tea-party types hailing the USA as the champion of property rights. In the world of publishing, they didn't accept international copyright until after I was born. Look at the Beatrix Potter scans in Google books: all of shoddy pirate editions in American libraries!
I thought the whole world understood by now that rules only applies to the Americans when they want them to.
 
Old 07-17-2011, 06:40 AM   #20
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,540
Blog Entries: 1

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
//offtopic

According to my experience if programming is your job(or "main skill"), then you should not work for free - it is extremely unhealthy.


Let's say you wrote a new software from scratch and decided to make it opensource. As far as I know, there is no reliable way to make any profit from writing software alone - you'll have to slap advertising onto website, provide paid support or sell manuals/merchandise, and anybody will be able to hijack your business at any moment. With proprietary license you can sell actual software and focus on actually improving it. With opensource the only way to profit from it is to sell something that is not actual software you wrote. I.e. programming skill goes unrewarded.
I think a lot of FOSS developers have other jobs which pay the bills. Additionally, AFAIK, bigger FOSS projects often have some commercial support. I know that it might be difficult if your FOSS project is your only source of income, but I still think that a lot of developers wouldn't get into FOSS if they:
a) didn't have a plan how to earn money on it.
b) didn't do it out of passion (not really focused on making money out of FOSS)

btw, Here are some ways of making money from FOSS projects. I think one of the ways mentioned there is similar to your idea of double licensing.
 
Old 07-17-2011, 06:53 AM   #21
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
I think a lot of FOSS developers have other jobs which pay the bills.
Which is the reason why FOSS is not "the way of future" and will be replaced by something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
Here are some ways of making money from FOSS projects. I think one of the ways mentioned there is similar to your idea of double licensing.
Dual-licensing is selling proprietary software. The rest is selling something other than original software.
 
Old 07-17-2011, 07:01 AM   #22
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,540
Blog Entries: 1

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000Reputation: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
Which is the reason why FOSS is not "the way of future" and will be replaced by something else.


Dual-licensing is selling proprietary software. The rest is selling something other than original software.
You've got a point here but selling something other than original software is a viable option. Red Hat is a good example. I don't think they are complaining about their financial situation.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
<fun> The Windows Crash </fun> Simon Bridge General 6 08-26-2007 07:46 PM
My rant on patents and software patents jschiwal General 28 03-17-2007 03:08 PM
Technology Patents 320mb General 2 06-24-2004 10:31 AM
GNU Vs. Patents lenucks General 1 06-13-2004 09:40 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration