15 Nov
2015
15 Nov
'15
11:53 a.m.
On 2015-11-15 20:14, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
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.
Ugh! I own something, and now you want me to have a responsibility to
any number of people because of this.
That is unreasonable, and could in fact mean that my best course of
action would be not to publish something. How do that make things better???
I honestly think this is an even worse idea than IP in the first place.
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.
The very large companies would not have a big problem with this. I'm
sure they have all the resources required to find a way to wiggle
through it. It's the small companies and individuals that would suffer.
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.
Not so. Reverse engineering the code do not produce the same information
as the source code. A lot of information gets lost in the translation
from source code to executable. Typically things that
the computer do
not care about, but which people very much may care about. Such as
*why*
a specific solution was done, information about side effects that the
coder should be aware of if he changes anything, general conventions
used in the code, possible commented out code that is kept for
reference, special effects of routines that are especially important...
The list goes on.
The disassembled binary is no way near what the source code is.
Not to mention when you use a high level language with a good optimizer.
Then you get another layer of obscurity, since you might not at all be
able to reconstruct back the actual high level source code that was used.
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.
I think your ideas are totally unreasonable.
If I own something, I ought to be free to do with it as I please,
including deleting it. What you are suggesting is that instead I would
have an obligation to help others who want to poke at it. I might not
have the time, interest, inclination, or motivation to do that. Then what?
Revenue sharing? Who cares? It might be way less return than my time costs.
Security? Bugs? Well, if someone are interested in working on that
level, DEC did sell you sources. You were free to pay for that, if you
wanted it. They did not actually deny you that ability.
But you could not make a business then producing your own version and
selling it, because you still did not own the copyright.
Just like you cannot buy a book, fix spelling errors, add a few
chapters, and then start selling it as your book.
You would, however, be free to submit back any changes you do, to the
copyright holder, who could do whatever he wants with them.
If you made something really good, you could also enter into a
discussion with the copyright holder about them paying you for your
improvement, and integrate it into their work.
That would apply to both software and books.
Just because you have some issues with some software you paid for, and
use, do not mean that you suddenly have any more rights than the ones
bestowed on you by the agreement at purchase.
Applies equally to software and books.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol