Rights vs Responsibilities (Was: To Al Kossow at bitsavers)

Upon reading all the discussion over the past three days, I am extremely interested in the overall tone of the discourse. While there has been rather passionate argument at times, there does not seem to be any of the caustic comments that we have seen on occasion in the past. Congratulations EVERYONE!!!!!!! In addition, since I have never been directly involved with extremely large companies who employ thousands of actual software developers, my point of view will obviously be less experienced about some matters than others. On the other hand, I believe I have seen enough software practices and development of the past 55 years that I have at least some degree of understanding of the issues. However, there has been one aspect that seems to have been lost amidst all of the legal points vs issues of abandonware. The points which I will raise are concerned uniquely with the aspects which relate to IP rights over software vs what seems, at the moment in all legislation which is relevant, to the total lack of any responsibilities by the owner of the software. This list has members who are in a unique position to understand and evaluate and perhaps be in a position to formulate changes in the legal status for the IP in regards to software in order to bring in some balance between rights and responsibilities. I realize that the very large companies such as Microsoft and Apple would probably take immediate exception to having any responsibilities imposed. But perhaps it would actually be in their self-interest. As just an interesting aspect with respect to copyright and the IP associated with copyright, it is impossible to be given a copyright over a book which is to be published without providing every single character, comma and space that the book is composed of. Perhaps all software should be required to be handled in the same manner. In return for having copyright, perhaps all software should be required to make available and publish the actual source code so that the responsibilities which I outline below are also satisfied. Perhaps in lieu of publishing the source code, the owner of the copyright and the IP would continue to hold those rights only as long as the responsibilities were satisfied. Just a starting thought for the discussion, Note that with all the tools available to convert executable code back into source code, the owners of the copyright and the IP would only be making it less difficult to look at the code when the source code is also available. So as a start to seeing if the discussion might lead somewhere, I will start by looking at three important areas in software: SECURITY OF THE SOFTWARE The days when the internet was composed of only individuals and companies who all knew each other and were not going to cause harm to any of the members are long gone, if they were ever truly present. If the code for all software was published, then the actual security would consist of the way in which the passwords were managed. The days of backdoors and buffer overflows would rapidly disappear and many more eyes would be available to evaluate that aspect. And software would, of necessity, be required to start with security as a primary goal rather than being added at the end. BUGS IN THE SOFTWARE Most large software packages have some software bugs. If all of the code had to be published, it would be much easier for expert individuals to find and fix the bugs. Note that some bugs are security risks while others are not. Intense focus on security would allow for bugs in that area to be discovered and caught more quickly. But other bugs would be much more easily found and fixed if the source code is available. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM To often it takes users to protest for a long time for changes to be made. If code was written in a manner which allowed for the sharing of the revenues, the owner of the copyright and the IP could have a much more productive relationship and the end user would have much better software available. With the availability of the source code, anyone who is expert enough could enhance code which a short-sighted owner or an owner with a lack of resources neglected. While I don't think that even DECUS supported the sharing of revenue, it was certainly a powerful forum for enhancements to be made to DEC software. Suggestions are requested from everyone as to how the above three areas could become responsibilities of the owner of the copyright and the IP of software. Neglecting them, and any other areas, could be cause for requiring the transfer of the copyright and IP to others who are willing to taking on those responsibilities and perhaps the transfer price could be based on both a fraction of past profits and future profits with a scale that provides decreasing weight the further away in time those past profits and future profits occur. That would ensure that owners who are no longer prepared to support their software allow for an orderly transition. And when a given area of software is past its BEST BEFORE DATE and the profits vanish, any hobby users could begin to act without any legal problems. If somehow the software became profitable again, the original owners could still receive a portion of the new revenue based on how long the original owners had been inactive along with other factors. The point I am making is that perhaps instead of just complaining, a group could be formed which produces actual changes in the laws which govern software. Have any of the points I have mentioned been reasonable? Are there additional factors which need attention? If you think my approach is lacking in objectivity and substance, please advance you own point of view and suggest alternatives which will make a difference, not just keep the status quo. What is needed is enlightened self-interest on everyone's part as opposed to the solution which regards over fishing a given portion of the ocean until all the fish are gone as a satisfactory solution and time to move to a different location and repeat the same mistakes. Would it be possible to form a group which produces advice for changes in the laws that would be beneficial to all parties and provide owners of copyright and IP over software benefits at the same time that the users also benefit. In short a win-win situation under co-operation rather than the winner takes all approach. Jerome Fine