| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Posted Apr 25, 2006 18:15 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022)In reply to: Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) by josh_stern Parent article: Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)
a) secrecy may not require unethical behaviour from the inside or outside, but lack of observation does tend to encourage laxity wrt strong moral decisions inside. The proprietary software effect RMS refers to for the user, however, is a natural result of the intersection of my needs being greater than the licensor's restrictions.
It is amusing to me to note that the only times you really see theft of open-source software are when proprietary-minded companies get involved, thinking nobody can see them. OTOH, proprietary software seems to have a far greater worry-level because they fear their legitimate users. We don't have to fear our legitimate users.
b) patents, like copyrights (in this respect) are grants of exclusivity. Perhaps the capitalist system has moved away from the good this engendered, but they are designed to prevent theft and encourage developers to develop by guaranteeing them control over the outcome of their labors. This presupposes that the inventors being protected have a disadvantage in entering a given field, and attempts to correct this disadvantage. Sadly, it has become inverted such that the disadvantaged entrants to the field are blocked by, rather than enabled by, patents.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||