OSDir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]


On 6/9/18 3:06 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard at Damon-Family.org>:
> 
>> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>>> be good.
>>
>> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
>> non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff
>> would leak. More likely the work conditions at those places would get
>> stricter, and likely would make it hard for someone inside to 'make a
>> copy'.
> 
> Copying some general-purpose frameworks and libraries is not a trade
> secret any more than, say, clever HR practices.
> 
>> More importantly, if we didn't have copyright laws, we likely didn't
>> get windows or even Dos anywhere near as early, and maybe even not
>> home computers.
> 
> I'm not moved.
> 
>> I've had this discussion before, and I think you underestimate how
>> much innovation would be inhibited it companies were restricted from
>> being able to make a profit off the development of intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for
>> companies to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the
>> base of commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to
>> run it on wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive,
>> and a limited base to promote the development of the Free Software
>> movement.
> 
> No doubt there would be some damage -- I could lose my job, for example.
> I believe, though, necessary and useful things will get done even in the
> absense of copyright protections. I *may* mean that some of those
> necessary and useful things need public funding.
> 
> The situation is very analogous to science, which depends on public
> funding and is based on open exchange of ideas and discoveries.
> 
> Your belief and mine can be put to incremental tests so an immediate
> revolution is not needed. For example, set a fixed date when
> *everything* will fall into Public Domain (say, year 2100). As the date
> approaches, we might start seeing the good and bad societal effects of
> the change and can react accordingly. Maybe there *is* a need for
> copyright protection, and the optimal duration turns out to be five
> years from publication.
> 
> 
> Marko
> 

In the comparison to science, I would say that my guess is that a LOT
more science is being done by private companies being encouraged by the
promise of Patent protection than by the support of the general public.
Admittedly, there are likely significant differences in focus of these
aspects.

I will agree that the current rules may have been pushed out of balance
by greed. Not sure if 5 years for copyright is long enough, but the
life+70 that the House of the Mouse got is too long.