> Regarding
> > ... I feel that "hiding, hoarding knowledge = dirty and
> >commercially protected disclosure and teaching = clean" ...
>
> This one REALLY REALLY throws me, in the context presented. If
> someone spends 6 months of their own time producing something, and
> then they do NOT place it in the public domain, is this hiding and
> hoarding? I think you are seeing some things from the wrong
> perspective.

Dan,

You missed the "commercially protected disclosure" clause. If the item were
in the public domain then by definition it could not be commercially
protected.

This is an issue I've struggled with over the years. Here are some thoughts:

1) When it comes to the selling of hardware, I have a rock solid insistence
that the interface specifications be available. As a Linux guy the most
aggravating thing is to want to use a piece of hardware and the information
required to make it work isn't available. 20 years ago when you bought
hardware, almost all of the interface specifications (cables, pins, timings,
commands) were provided with the product. Nowadays either you get the
distributor who wouldn't know a snake if it were biting them, or the
original manufacturer, who somehow think that the instructions for interface
to their product is a state secret that spies would sell to the highest
bidder. But the truth of the matter is that hardware manufacturers jobs and
mission is to sell hardware, and as such they should be willing and eager to
inform anyone who asks about how to interface anything to their equipment.

2) Now software is a more sticky issue, a minefield in fact because the
cost of copying is negligable. IP issues notwithstanding, it's gotten to the
point where a majority of users truly believe they own the software when they
buy it. And I do mean believe, not know. They know it's a license. But because
of this belief they copy and trade software in massive quantities.

It's wrong. Very Wrong. But it's a byproduct of the conditional ethics many
employ "I'll do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and I don't
get caught." The same ethic that keeps folks (admittedly myself included)
speeding down the highways well above the posted speed limit.

Then come the leeches who simply take that hard developed software, copy
it and redistribute it in large quantities.

So commercial software manufacturers' natural tendency is to protect their
hard developed property like the crown jewels, because they are the crown
jewels. But the consequence is that your get the two pronged attack of
trade secrecy and software patents. Of course both are helpful to the software
companies but detrimental to the progress of software development in general.
Trade secrets for obvious reasons, and patents because they generally written
to be so far reaching that if enforced, no other company would be able to
ever compete anywhere close to the area. I present Amazon's "One Click"
patent as a perfect example. Way too broad a scope.

One the other hand there's the Free Software movement. It doesn't work in its
current form because it can't gather enough dollars to make the development
of ordinary software competitive. It's wonderful for infrastructure software
(operating systems, compilers, and the like) but application features and
support are driven by money, not a desire to have a superior product.

In my world the ideal would be open source software whose costs is tied to
usage. But short of embedding the softare in a piece of hardware, I can't
figure out how to do it. By usage I mean that those who use it for
noncommercial purposes can get it and use it for free. But those who are
delveloping or redistributing for profit should cut in the authors of
infrastructure for a piece of the action. It would encourage everyone to
try out the software, and encourage folks to develop and improve from
the existing free software base.

It's a fantasy world. But one I'd like to see.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu