Community commentary: Encouraging open code in public procurement policies

[Jimen Ching]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Tom Donahoe wrote:
>    The crux of the matter, it seems to me, with the Open Source vs.
>Proprietary software issue is the copyright model itself.

Yes.  It is exactly that.  Richard Stallman recognized this and uses the
copyright law itself to further the cause for free software (notice I
didn't use Open Source).  There is a difference, see below.

>On the one hand, the open source movement represents, and I think
>expresses quite well, the need for new copyright legislation. A
>community of practice exists here in which developers, programmers,
>hobbyists, with varying level of expertise share solutions to problems,
>while promoting learning and improvement of the craft (reason why the
>word 'halau' is an appropriate name for the group, even if there is no
>kumu per se).

For learning and academia, copyright has a fair use clause.  Of course,
this does not allow modifying the software source code.  But copyright
does not cover this activity.  At least I don't think so.

It is all those other laws that prevent academia from using these software
for learning.  I.e. reverse engineering can be taught as a college course.
But UCITA made sure that will never happen.  Of course, expanding the
knowledge of humanity was not at the top of the list when the government
created patents and copyrights.

>On the other hand, as I think someone else pointed out, "A person's
>gotta eat." There should be some reward for the person or people who put
>the time and effort into writing the majority of the code...even if the
>community helps improve it.

Nobody said producers of software should starve.  The question is not
whether such producers should be rewarded, but how they should be
rewarded.  The current system of sole ownership for the ideas in the
software seem quite excessive.  There must be a middle ground somewhere.

>    It's in that last clause that lies one of the major problems. Under
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>current copyright law (depending of course on how the copyright itself is
>written), the community may not make changes to, or in some cases even
>discuss, bugs that may exist in the code. The end-user can get stuck with a
>lousy piece of software--and often is.

If that last clause is what people truly want, then free software provides
it better than proprietary software could.  I.e. with free software,
producers of software will have an easier time making money and feeding
their families.  It is proprietary software that makes it hard to earn a
living.  If the software industry continue in the direction it is going,
it will become impossible to write legal software at all.  Then how will
these producers of software make a living?  I don't think the people
making the laws have thought too far ahead.

I suspect that 'needing to eat' is not the motive most people write
software.  The trends suggest that people write software to get rich.  I
think Richard Stallman has the right idea.  If you want to change the way
people think about software, you must appeal to their moral obligation,
not their stomach.

>    I'm not sure I entirely buy the argument that information wants to be
>free.

I don't even understand what it means.  Does information want to run
around in an open field?  Does it want to own hand guns?  Does it want a
vote?  What does it mean 'information wants to be free'?

I think what these advocates are trying to say is that 'people want
information to be free'.  But saying this would make them look selfish.
This is why the Free Software Foundation says; Software users should have
the freedom to share software.  They don't say 'software wants to be
free'.  Software is not a person.  It has no concept of freedom.  The
concept of freedom is a human concept.

The only way to achieve freedom for the users of software is to appeal to
the morality of those who wish to take those freedoms away, such as
proprietary software companies.  Open Source Software does not advocate
these freedoms.  OSS wants to work with proprietary software companies,
and in doing so, helps to take about your freedom.

>Economists have long pointed out that information is the scarcest
>good.

If economists can force you to pay for air, they would.  I don't think we
should look to economists for solutions to the software copyright
problems.

>    I think we need to revise copyright laws in such a way as to lessen the
>length of time that a person may hold a copyright--maybe back to the
>original 14 years.

14 years?  ;-)  Have you seen what happened in the last 14 years?  Even 6
months is too long.  I don't think changing the copyright law will fix the
problems in the software industry.  Also, any attempt will most likely
fail.  For now, I think the most we can do is to prevent laws like UCITA
from being passed.  Has Hawaii passed it yet?

--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org