Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:18:30 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: hoek@hwcn.org Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hoek@hwcn.org, freelist@webweaver.net, brett@lariat.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: InfoWorld Electric: Linux Zealots Trashing FreeBSD, Berkeley Message-ID: <199805040318.WAA00441@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980503201359.572E-100000@james.hwcn.org> from Tim Vanderhoek at "May 3, 98 08:43:39 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Vanderhoek said: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, John S. Dyson wrote: > > > I suggest that synergy with industry is not only *not* destructive > > to free software, but actually helps fund it. I believe that > > Synergy is helpful, yes. (In the real world, that is --- just > like Stallman, I can propose worlds where it is not --- they > don't mean anything!). My concern is that the computer industry > may be inherently susceptible to the development of monopolies. > A monopoly is not conduscive to synergy. > This is where companies are motivated to re-contribute the code back to free software, because of the reality of internet support and enhancement. The motivation isn't totally altruistic, and this very mechanism helps to keep software free. It is up to the "contributors" (either commercial or hobby) to put the code out for the public to use. Licenses that a-priori take the freedom away to hold trade secrets will be avoided by the commercial sector, and if such inventions are ever to be created, then that innovative part of the commercial sector will totally avoid such licenses. The advantages of net support (on non-trivial code) will virtually entice companies to re-contribute, without the coercion of the encumbering pseudo-free licenses. Those companies will consider the opportunity cost of re-inventing the wheel all of the time by re-integrating the internet enhancements. If their invention is significant, and supports a competitive advantage, then the companies or major contributors will make the tradeoff. The beauty of the free software licenses (in the case of products that have a network support critical mass) is that they in the real world create a disincentive to keep IP gratuitiously proprietary, where the encumbered pseudo free licenses effectively take that choice away, even if the "to be" proprietary innovation is significant, and of little interest to the internet community at large. > > Most -list readers (including me) agree the BSD license can > bring-about an open software world much more quickly and easily, > but if we assume open software is destined to win regardless of > license, then it is this future 20 years (minimum) that we are > concerned with in choosing a license. History judges futurists > harshly, and 20 years makes my head spin. Heck, that's probably > older than most of the -list participants here... ;-) > (IMO) I suspect that for small, entrepreneurial developments, an Artistic or Netscape type license would be preferable for such a developer. For large and diverse projects, it is important to support freedom of business models, and also important to recognize that the opportunity cost of taking a "free" software project private, and the PR loss shields the free project, without the need for restrictive, encumbering and overbearing religious license terms. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805040318.WAA00441>