A few comments in response (knowing that the original poster is not on the list):
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Jonathan Franklin <jafrank[_at_]umich.edu> forwarded
the following information:
>
> While the copyleft approach has helped several popular UNIX-based
> programs enjoy distributed development and widespread use, it introduces
> a second problem. It limits the economic incentives to make follow-on
> investments. Freedom from copy restrictions can imply freedom from
> income.
Only if one's income is derived from the sale of licenses to use the software. Most of the free software movement believes that people can and should make money *using* and *applying* the software that is written (there's nothing wrong with selling your software, but everyone does better if you give it away *with* full source code).
> While, in principle, copyleft permits a software developer to
> charge a distribution fee for the bundled software good and its
> derivative innovation, in practice, the requirement of full disclosure
> prevents an author from deriving income from more than a single sale.
Right -- but once again, this is not the point of the FSF/Gnu licensing schemes.
> Having sold the software once, a seller must then compete with source
> code available from the first buyer. Such a seller has no market power
> selling against an identical copy of their own product. For software,
> this results in a price at or near marginal cost which approaches zero.
Which, many of us believe, is a *good* thing..
> Accordingly, we introduce a profit incentive period into a copymiddle
> license which an innovator uses to distribute their software and promote
> complementary investments in product and network growth. Under the
> copymiddle licensing strategy, an innovator would permit the creator of
> a derivative work to retain interest in the subsequent improvements for
> a reasonable period - seven years, for example - before shifting to
> copyleft.
The problem with this arrangement is that it ignores one of the main incentives for authors to write Open Source software in the first place: to reap the rewards of a large community of users/software developers in improving the software for the use of the original author (and everyone else).
To put it another way, I am motivated to write the software in the first place because I know that someone out there is likely to improve upon it and let me use the improved version (and more importantly, to fix bugs). "Copymiddle", as I understand it, takes away this benefit/incentive for 7 years, which might as well be forever in the world of software.
> Upon expiration of the copymiddle license, the contract would
> specifically eliminate all restrictions on redistribution, ensuring
> that both customers and third party innovators could enjoy free
> access. All parties would then be free to incorporate second tier
> innovations in their own third tier enhancements without fear of
> hold-up.
I don't see why this "copymiddle" incentive is needed. There is plenty of incentive for companies large and small to develop "open source" software - in fact the trend is that more and more companies are developing open source software.
> From a broad societal perspective, copymiddle licenses are attractive.
> First, it harnesses market forces to dynamically shorten the effective
> period of exclusion and to increase investment. This strategy has the
> unusual advantage that an inventor, in this case a first author of
> software, may find it economically rational to forgo monopoly rents
> during the tail of the statutory period on a first generation product.
> In exchange, he or she stimulates demand from an expanded network of
> co-investors and consumers who also represent a larger market for a
> second generation product.
But often, the "second generation" is much more useable and higher quality than the first generation, even though more effort may be required to generate the first generation. I'm not sure that if I'm the initial developer, it would make sense for me to put it under this license, when the second developer (the "improver") is very likely to gain more "rents" than the first.
> Although long periods of exclusion limit complementary investments
> for all copyrightable subject matter, the problem is particularly
> acute for software. New functionality is more easily developed on
> the basis of reusable subroutines. Moreover, proprietary interests
> in the form of copyrights hinder the computer community's ability
> to settle on standards.
True. Very true. Copyright impedes software development. Period. (and you can quote me on that)
> the filing of it as for patents. Copymiddle suggests that an inventors'
> best interest may lie in enabling others to enhance and build upon an
> original work.
I'm not quite clear about whether the second author has the right to redistribute the original author's work.. If so, then the original author gets nothing, if not, then there is a delicate licensing negotiation for each improvement (which means higher transaction costs, I would guess).
> Third, consumers improve their access to existing products when the
> product becomes freely distributable. They also benefit from earlier
> introduction of new products.
Seven years means the improvements become totally obsolete. Try seven weeks ;-)
> Both effects imply a strict Pareto improvement in consumer welfare.
I disagree with the plausability of the effects, so I disagree with the conclusion.
> The copymiddle strategy might therefore represent a more balanced
> approach to intellectual property that accounts for both efficient
> distribution under a static framework and efficient innovation under
> a dynamic framework.
Well, first of all, seven years is the same as seventy or seven hundred when it comes to software. To be realistic, I think seven months would be fairer (or at least closer to that scale).
Second of all, the assumption that Open Source software doesn't provide the incentive for software companies or groups or individuals to produce high quality, innovative software is false. Utterly false. Completely false. In fact, it is the overreaching (perhaps unconstitutional) yoke of copyright law around the necks of software developers which stifles innovation and high quality software.
I could list many many pieces of software that are GNU-licensed (or BSD-style licensed) that are generally agreed to be best-of-breed, especially in the rapidly growing Internet "area".
I think that the reason that ignorance of the open source movement is so great is that open source software has yet to move to the desktop in a big way. And lets face it, most pundits and law professors and reporters and such don't see much beyond the software that runs on their desktop.
Microsoft's marketing $$ are quite hard to overcome. This too will pass.
-Gabe
Gabriel Wachob
import std.disclaimer
Received on Wed Oct 14 1998 - 04:54:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT