Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business)
Here's a
delightful attack on free software in the Spring issue of
Strategy+Business magazine (registration is required to read it).
"The 'viral' quality of GPL software is intentional: Proponents
happily acknowledge that the goal is to undermine incentives to create
software that carries a price tag. But for those of us without ideological
qualms about software as private property, the wall that GPL erects between
open source and proprietary software seems unfortunate." They
would, of course, be happier with a one-way wall. (Thanks to Anand Vaidya).
(Log in to post comments)
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 13, 2003 16:52 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] They would, of course, be happier with a one-way wall. This is always what boggles me about people who claim the GPL is "too restrictive". Now, some in the open source community might be in a position to say that... although whenever I've seen it claimed, even by those in the open source community, it's always in the context of proprietary software. Proprietary licenses and agreements are viral. They're designed to be. Just ask SCO; they're trying to take full advantage of a viral proprietary agreemnt right now! Oh well. The FUD will probably never fully go away. -Rob
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 13, 2003 16:56 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] From the article's footer:
Coincidence? :)
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 13, 2003 17:22 UTC (Thu) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Unfortunately, probably… :-)
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 13, 2003 21:07 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Passell is one of the consultants hired by CompTIA to FUD us. He's taken a hand in official correspondence from CompTIA to which he's signed other people's names - but the .doc file properties on the correspondence identify them as coming from his PC at the Milken Institute.Remember Michael Milken, the jailed junk-bond king generally thought to be responsible for bankrupting a number of pension funds in the 80's? That's who Passell works for. A goodgle search on Milken's efforts to rehabilitate his name through his institute will yield some interesting articles. Bruce
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 17, 2003 17:13 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Ah…that puts a different light on it. Thank you—I had not known any of that before.
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 13, 2003 17:01 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] A quote from the article: If federal research in medicine had been distributed under some equivalent of the GPL, the spectacular burst of innovation in drugs and genetic engineering by private enterprise in the last decade would have been delayed. Would it have? Perhaps. Would research into those same drugs have been delayed? That's not as obvious. Yeah, maybe it would have required more federal funding. On the other hand, we wouldn't have all the new drugs protected under patents and consequently so bloody expensive that the entire country is in a very serious crisis as health care prices spiral out of control. The very same taxpayers that funded that federal research in medicine now cannot afford the drugs that resulted from it. The very same government (and governments, if you want to count the states) that paid for it are now facing serious financial problems as they deal with how to pay for health care in the face of expensive proprietary drugs. This has not been all win. Sure, there are benefits, but I have to wonder if we might have been able to keep most of the benefits without the penalties. And the penalties should serve as a severe warning sign who might take this as a useful analogy for the software world. (Never mind the author's earlier completely incorrect statement that the GPL means that others can't take "ideas" from GPL software. Wrong! Fundamental misunderstanding of copyrights and patents there. You can't take code, but you can certainly always take ideas (unless there is a patent problem somewhere). (And of course I take huge exception to his implication that "special interest politics" is what supports open source....) -Rob
Reply to author Posted Mar 13, 2003 18:31 UTC (Thu) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Did you send an email to the author? Is it even worth doing that,since he sounds like a Microsoft PR flack?
Why Open Source Stifles Innovation (Strategy+Business) Posted Mar 14, 2003 20:32 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Sure, there are benefitsReally? I have the distinct impression that unecessary and probably harmful prescriptions of many new drugs, in particular antidepressants, are driven by pharmeceutical companies and not by a real interest of medical practitioners in the health of their patients. Basically all legislation concerning intellectual property is demanded by the "special interest politics" of companies who think they have a right to make a profit from the public ... any governing body which put the interests of the public first would legislate for public safety ahead of private profit ... such legislation exists but is increasingly flouted. "Ritilin will make me smart..." J
Nonsense, look at the evidence. See "The Most Important Software Innovations" Posted Mar 13, 2003 17:36 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] I've specifically studied innovation in software: see my paper The Most Important Software Innovations. A large number of innovations have been developed as open source software. For example, the entire Internet's infrastructure was developed as open source software. Conversely, no key software innovation has been produced by the biggest software company (Microsoft).Besides, the GPL doesn't prevent reusing ideas - it is not a patent. It merely forbids certain kinds of code reuse. Proprietary licenses are usually even more restrictive.
Nonsense, look at the evidence. See "The Most Important Software Innovations" Posted Mar 13, 2003 18:59 UTC (Thu) by dcoolidge (guest, #1390) [Link] I would be fun to see what M$ thinks they have innovated over the years.
Nonsense, look at the evidence. See "The Most Important Software Innovations" Posted Mar 14, 2003 18:09 UTC (Fri) by thoffman (subscriber, #3063) [Link] Apparently Microsoft invented the drop-down combo box as a user interface element. Or so I've been told.Of course, that was back in the Windows 3.0 days. But yeah, almost everything MS does is either trivial, a rip-off of Apple (err, Xerox PARC), or a cleaned-up-dumbed-down-polished version of something invented at a university somewhere.
nostalgia Posted Mar 14, 2003 20:36 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Irony? We don't get that around here any more!
blush Posted Mar 14, 2003 20:39 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Jon, could we have 'Here is the article you are responding to' in the 'preview' page as well as the initial comment editor? Pretty please?
I support property Posted Mar 13, 2003 22:39 UTC (Thu) by cfischer (subscriber, #3983) [Link] Pretty un-ideologically, I do support software as property.I'm of the opinion that when I've bought it, I own it fully. Some proponents of government-granted monopolies do not hold
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 1:11 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Now we have troll postings on LWN? The fact that you support property has about as much to do with the GPL as the fact that you support peanut butter sandwiches. GPL software is copyrighted and is the property of its authors. Those authors decide of their own free will to share their property with others. For this, they get FUD from prostitutes like Passell and troll like you. Go away, moron.
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 4:43 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Go away, moron.Bruce, you just had a relapse. ;-) (I haven't fallen off the wagon for some time, so I feel safe throwing a few small stones now and then..)
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 7:01 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Yeah, I guess should have been more tolerant.Or I could just say a gentleman is never unintentionally rude. :-)
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 4:57 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] A little too hasty on the response there, Bruce. Have another read of why he supports the idea of software as property: I'm of the opinion that when I've bought it, I own it fully. Some proponents of government-granted monopolies do not hold the same views; they want to take my property rights away. In other words, he's pointing out the hypocrisy of proprietary software hoarders: they want property rights to apply only to them, not to the customer. If software is to be subject to property rights, then once I've bought some software, it is my property and I should be able to do anything I like to it, including run it through a device that makes copies of it. Oh, sorry Software Vendor, you say that's not what you want? Then let's just stop treating software as if it's physical property, shall we? Naturally, it is the farcical idea of trying to attach physical scarcity laws to infinitely reproduceable intellectual objects that causes these paradoxes.
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 6:55 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] His sentiment is that the GPL supporters are in the same camp as the proprietary software vendors - that neither has a right to assert any control over the copy of software that he's taken home. If we're going to have a world in which free software and proprietary can compete upon a level playing field, his sentiment is not the way to achieve it. The first necessary step in getting support for our rights is to acknowledge that others have rights too, including the proprietary software and media vendors. While I don't approve of DRM, I do not, and have never, approved of unauthorized copying of proprietary works. Go back and look at the essay I wrote on why Napster was bad for Free Software. The fact that some record company has a right to get people to pay for copies does not justify their preventing me from making backups, converting formats, and playing on devices of my choice. But if I were to put that recording on the net for all to copy, they'd have a right to prosecute me for that.Bruce
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 11:14 UTC (Fri) by dhj (guest, #4655) [Link] But if I were to put that recording on the net for all to copy, they'd have a right to prosecute me for that.Would you still agree if you had played the song on the radio instead, and paid a royalty perhaps? Let's not get carried away with defending the rights of copyright owners to prosecute, just because of the digital context. I'm often suprised by the argument that redistribution should be illegal because it undermines a business model, since there are no sucessful business models in pay-to-play internet music distribution that I'm aware of. You can't undermine something that doesn't exist. Daniel
I support property Posted Mar 20, 2003 5:05 UTC (Thu) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]
Would you still agree if you had played the song on the radio instead, and paid a royalty perhaps? Let's not get carried away with defending the rights of copyright owners to prosecute, just because of the digital context.
I support property Posted Mar 14, 2003 11:30 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Actually, Bruce, I thought he was parroting the FSF line and your response absolutely amazed me!Think again. He said "when I buy a copy, that *copy* is *mine*". He wishes to claim exactly the same rights for the software he bought, as he would for a book. He is trying to assert the standard copyright doctrine of "the principle of first sale". I can't see where you're getting it - what on earth is wrong with him asserting that he can do what the hell he likes (vendors assertions to the contrary not withstanding) to his copy that he has legally acquired? Cheers,
nostalgia Posted Mar 14, 2003 20:37 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Irony? We don't get that around here any more!
|
|
||||||||||||