[brachiator]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>
If a published work itself contains discoveries, they should not be deliberately hidden. If they're important, patent them. If they're not that important, then the government and the people have no interest really in helping to keep them a secret. That burden should fall squarely on the person who doesn't want to reveal it, and this may necessitate not securing related granted benefits such as copyrights.
</STRONG>

The "discoveries" are not deliberately hidden. That is a byproduct of compilation. The point is that the source is a separate work, a separate *resource*. We are not talking about the government helping people "hide" source, because you would *force* its publication, eliminating trade secret protection as well as the right not to publish materials *related* to a copyrighted software. Or have I distorted what would be required for implementation? As I understand it, you would allow Moki neither trade secret protection of source, nor copyright on the source code, nor even the ability to keep his code secret absent such protections -- rather, you would require him to publish his source code as a condition of gaining copyright over his (object code) published software.

You have not addressed the costs I outlined in my last post. Its the invasiveness and burden of requiring source disclosure versus the *expansive* second-order use value, that I would like you to consider.

I say "expansive" because the publication of source code reveals and enables much more extensive uses than we consider "fair" for other copyrightable materials. E.g., Moki's "book recipe." English scholar's work with Shakespeare is not really on point, because such study is long-term and in-depth, and will still not *really* allow one to produce another "Romeo & Juliet," even if one is an English professor -- while, if I understand the nature of source code, and Moki's explanation, getting one's hands on the source code would allow any competent programmer to produce another "Snapz Pro"...

I don't want to get into the question of fixing duration, as that is a whole 'nother subject.

[moki]

Originally posted by brachiator:
<STRONG>I say "expansive" because the publication of source code reveals and enables much more extensive uses than we consider "fair" for other copyrightable materials. E.g., Moki's "book recipe." English scholar's work with Shakespeare is not really on point, because such study is long-term and in-depth, and will still not *really* allow one to produce another "Romeo & Juliet," even if one is an English professor -- while, if I understand the nature of source code, and Moki's explanation, getting one's hands on the source code would allow any competent programmer to produce another "Snapz Pro"...</STRONG>

They don't even have to be all that competant to do it -- all of the work is right there for them to churn out a Snapz Pro X clone -- or worse (because it would be much harder to identify) -- they can take parts of the code and build new things based on my work... and I'd never be able to tell they did it.

It is something that is hard for people to understand who are not programmers -- but you simply cannot equate what you learn from reading the book someone wrote (or even having access to all of their life experiences, background notes, research, etc.) to what you get when you have someone else's source code.

We're not talking about merely obtaining the finished work, we're talking about obtaining the trade secret or recipe that gives the recipient power to make things from it. Imagine if it were possible to take the book someone wrote, cut and paste chapters here and there, and create something -- actually many different things -- you can sell with very little effort involved.

In the case of a book, this wouldn't work -- because nothing would make sense all cut and pasted together -- and it would be easily identifiable when the work was infringed upon in this manner. Such is not the case with software.

Obtaining someone's source code is in a very real way obtaining both someone's knowledge and their "secret recipe" for making things -- a concept that has no analog in the traditional mediums we're used to working with.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>Obtaining someone's source code is in a very real way obtaining both someone's knowledge and their "secret recipe" for making things -- a concept that has no analog in the traditional mediums we're used to working with.</STRONG>

thanks, Moki.

This has been an enlightening discussion for me, partly because of what I've learned about code ( ) and partly just for the reiteration of the severe differences in both kind and degree between software and traditional copyrightable and patentable works.

To bring it back to the original issue of the thread, I'm no more attracted to even the new licensing scheme, but I think the divergence down the "must...disclose...source!" path illustrates better than the licensing business did how the differences between traditional works and software really destabilize the legal regime.

Whether your licensing scheme is "ethical" is being discussed, then, with the baseline ethics set relative to a legal framework into which software does not fit, given differences in production, distribution, economic scaling, and, as we've seen here, fundamental issues of composition, function, and accessibility of various levels of information.

Maybe we need a tiered system of copyright protections... something that would preserve all the fair uses for traditional works, and as many of them as are economically practical for software, while allowing software copyright that preclude the economically impractical protections, yet does not destroy them for traditional works. (In such a scheme, software might get Moki's kind of licensing system, and the hardcore DMCA protections, but works that *could* be released in traditional formats would not, regardless of whether they were released electronically, unless they were also made available traditionally. Thus, an e-Book formatted title could only get DMCA anti-reverse-engineering protection so long as it was also released -- and as widely -- in traditional hard copy, so that publishers could not weasel around traditional fair use where it was not warranted.)

Oh, BTW, Moki -- thanks for "escapepod..." Talk about your software in the public interest!

[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: brachiator ]

[moki]

Originally posted by brachiator:
<STRONG>Oh, BTW, Moki -- thanks for "escapepod..." Talk about your software in the public interest! </STRONG>

hush, you. I'm an evil dictatorial overlord out to harm society, and don't you forget it!

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

hush, you. I'm an evil dictatorial overlord out to harm society, and don't you forget it! </STRONG>

hehe...no Moki, you are just a business owner. You are out to maximize your profits. Whether that process happens to be beneficial to society (or is prevented from harming it) depends in no part on you, but on the nature of your marketplace, and on legislation such as copyright laws.

[moki]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

hehe...no Moki, you are just a business owner. You are out to maximize your profits. Whether that process happens to be beneficial to society (or is prevented from harming it) depends in no part on you, but on the nature of your marketplace, and on legislation such as copyright laws.

</STRONG>

Actually, much of this is not about "maximizing profits" to me -- there are many things we'd be doing differently if that were the case -- it is about fairness, and my right to do what I want with my hard work (which often times is to donate it -- both my time and my work).

[moki]

BTW, you lawyer-types should be extremely interested in this:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...thread&tid=155

This is the kind of thing that more laws and litigation get us... ugh.

[krove]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>BTW, you lawyer-types should be extremely interested in this:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...thread&tid=155

This is the kind of thing that more laws and litigation get us... ugh.</STRONG>

Ugh is right! That's disgusting.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Charles--
I would be most pleased if you have a solution that you'd like to share. If you can encourage Andrew to write software which the public will later, when it is out of term, have the full use of and ability to learn from and modify (and have to a much more limited extent in term), please don't keep us all in the dark.</STRONG>

Elementary, my dear Kangarooski - license codes that don't expire. Then you can use the software forever, even if you need to reformat your drive. Or, as moki is doing, you could arrange to have the license code generator released to the public if you go out of business, which moki said he would, which makes even the expiring license codes available to the public if they went under, although I'd like it better if they didn't expire, so that I could keep using the software forever without having to call them, since they're not going to go out of business and I don't want them to.

It's not necessary to release the source code, and it never was. If moki decides to open-source his software, more power to him, but that's his decision.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>BTW, you lawyer-types should be extremely interested in this:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...thread&tid=155

This is the kind of thing that more laws and litigation get us... ugh.</STRONG>

Ideally, the lawyer(s) representing PanIP here will get sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing a frivolous/harrassing lawsuit.

Do these guys really have a patent like they described? What rocket scientist granted *that*?

[brachiator]

double post. sorry!

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: brachiator ]

[MrBS]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>
Andrew--
You do indeed get a book recipe. I can sit here all day and write sequels to Shakespeare's plays, using the same language and literary techniques. (and in fact, I forget the title, but now I'm reminded of a story of what would've happened if Romeo and Juliet had run away together) English students spend a damn lot of time looking at books and learning how to do just this sort of thing. It is entirely possible to examine some piece of writing and determine what was going through the author's mind. It's a wonderful tool; however it is one that is wholly unavailable with object code, as you've said.
</STRONG>

For someone who claims to have taken programming classes you have a very poor grasp of what source code is. Nothing is analogous to it. It is not like having a book. With source code, it takes a few minutes and you can compile the program. This would be like you reading a book, then being able to spend twenty minutes and have a copy of it, with the original type setting, printed on the same quality paper, professionally bound with the same prints. Or you could just change the author's name to your own.
And this is just the blatant reproduction.
The more insidious use has no analogy in literature. As moki pointed out, functions and sub-routines affect the overall product greatly, but they're impossible to identify after the source has been compiled.
~BS


[edit "small" wasn't needed]

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: MrBS ]

[MrBS]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Andrew--
You do indeed get a book recipe. I can sit here all day and write sequels to Shakespeare's plays, using the same language and literary techniques. (and in fact, I forget the title, but now I'm reminded of a story of what would've happened if Romeo and Juliet had run away together) English students spend a damn lot of time looking at books and learning how to do just this sort of thing. It is entirely possible to examine some piece of writing and determine what was going through the author's mind. It's a wonderful tool; however it is one that is wholly unavailable with object code, as you've said.
</STRONG>

Obviously being of a legalistic bent, what do you propose as satisfactory source code? What if it's written in a low level language? What if it's undocumented? Are you going to sue moki because he didn't comment a sub-routine? $2000 and/or up to 30 days for incomplete pre/post-conditions? None of that matters because you're not buying the source code. If you want that, make an offer and see what it's worth to moki.
~BS

[cpt kangarooski]

Brachiator--
However, the source is still a necessary work in order to perform any meaningful changes, in a way that is unique. I wouldn't require publication of author's notes because we don't have a pressing need for them in order to just make all the uses of the work proper that we desire. If it were feasible to decompile the object code into something useful, I'd be perfectly satisfied with that.

As for trade secrets, they are minimally protected... and conditions for copyright grants are hardly unknown -- deposit requirements, filing, fees, citizenship, etc. As with any sort of bargain, there can be strings attached. Indeed, while you'd have to be a lot more of a reformer than I am, there's nothing inherently wrong with requiring even authors notes and source materials, if Congress really deemed that important enough.

Certainly, I'd have no problem with Andrew preserving his trade secrets however, if he didn't attempt to obtain a copyright. Or perhaps, as you said, an alternative position could be found with minimal protections for binaries published without deposit of source, though I don't know what that alternative would consist of precisely, and am open to suggestions.

Regarding the concern that much more extensive uses are possible, some of these are perfectly legal, and would be considered fair now. Remember, fair uses are protected by the courts, not Congress; the constitution demands uses which are presently impossible. Sadly, no one has ever been able to craft strict guidelines as to what is and is not fair use, so there is always the danger of over- or under-inclusiveness. Given a choice between the two, we have consistantly chosen over-inclusiveness, and relied on the courts to take care of the possible but illegal uses.

Regarding tiers though, I'm not fond of them. The MPAA has been arguing of late that although fair use of a DVD is impossible (it's legal, just impossible to exercise -- making it the subject of a couple of legal battles still ongoing) that VHS tapes are an alternative. Yet there are quality differences between the two, and carried to extremes, this would permit both the potential loss of usable archival works (VCR media isn't the longest-lived thing in the world), and could result in, to hop over to the audio world, protected copies released on CD, and the usable copy only being on a mono wax cylinder. Numerous authors and publishers would love to eliminate fair use, it's up to us to simply deny them this, even if they suffer as a result of it.

Andrew--
Again, the general idea is for people to be able to build on each other's work. Copyright embodies the whole 'standing on the shoulders of giants' philosophy. The only valid concern you've put forth here is being able to find infringers. But where there is conflict between legitimate and illigitimate uses, I think that the copyright holder is going to be stuck shouldering the burden. If I xerox copy a book illegally, it is up to the copyright holder to track me down; we don't require that I be turned in by the xerox gestapo, or have to get a license from the government just to get one of the machines. They'll never be able to tell I did it; what makes you special?

(and incidentally, you can take books people have written, modify them, and republish them with little, or even no effort; many public domain works remain in print, are translated, edited, etc.)

Regarding the patent suit, it sounds like it's harrassing (and subject to FRCP 11, as was already noted), and may be the result of an improvidently granted patent. This kind of makes it a poster child for having fewer IP grants and fewer rights, really. After all, if this really were a valid patent, wouldn't you be stringently in favor of the suit, Andrew? There would be an infringement, after all. Copyright only exists due to laws; you probably shouldn't forget it.

Charles--
Okay, now how do I rewrite that software later on, or use it without a license code at all, when the software is in the public domain and I have every legal right to do both? Use isn't just use as intended. It is _any_ kind of use. Out of term works have no protection whatsoever, remember. Your solution is like letting Shakespeare's plays be readable in their original form forever, without ever adapting them. King Lear is great, but I also like Ran.

MrBS--
Well, we're getting to that. If you think we're having trouble now, just imagine what happens when some bright soul invents the replicator from Star Trek and material goods are no longer scarce! I've heard it described as the end of the world as we know it.

As for satisfactory source, I'd say whatever the author had, plus the basic information needed to recreate it, e.g. compiler choice, intended platform, etc. I wouldn't require people to go nuts over failure to comment in good faith. If it were abused, however, more stringent requirements might make sense. This is hardly unheard of. There used to be very precise requirements as to manditory copyright notices, where failure to comply resulted in loss of copyright. (which is why MLK's I Have a Dream speech is in the public domain) The USCO and Library of Congress can easily require that in order to acquire a copyright, copies of the work that comply with their archival requirements be deposited. Books on acid free paper, for example, as opposed to newsprint. Music on DAT or CD, as opposed to scratched up records. I can't imagine any penalty for failure to meet whatever requirements the USCO would propogate aside from loss of copyright on the work. (though I'd want a chance to amend the application before resorting to that)

And besides -- I never said that I'd buy the source. Or that it even had to be offered up for sale. It just has to be deposited as a part of the copyright application process, like the documents and plans that the USPTO requires for patents. Where are you getting this purchase stuff from? The closest it comes is that Ambrosia would be purchasing a copyright from the government, and source would be a part of the cost. Where I come in to that, I haven't the foggiest.

[MrBS]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>As for satisfactory source, I'd say whatever the author had, plus the basic information needed to recreate it, e.g. compiler choice, intended platform, etc. I wouldn't require people to go nuts over failure to comment in good faith. If it were abused, however, more stringent requirements might make sense.</STRONG>

Ha! You want to legislate programming style? Have the supreme court decide their feelings on bracket styles? Donnie, you are out of your element.
~BS (with some help from Walter)

[MrBS]

cpt, to illustrate your point, maybe you would be kind enough to comment on the proposed legality of some of this source code:
http://www0.us.ioccc.org/years.html. Could these people patent/copyright their source?
~BS

[climber]

Cpt, I think I understand what you�re trying to say, but I disagree with one of your points. You have stated something to the point that the object code has no use without the source code And, that without such a practical use, a copyright should not be not valid. There is a valid use to the object code. It may not fit your needs, but it is still a valuable public use after the copyright has expired. The object code will still function, as it was intended and originally published, at that expiration. You then be able to run, use and distribute that code

The best analogy I can think of would be a motion picture. Start Wars is going to be released this week. When its copyright expires you or I should be able to then make copies of the movie and distribute them as we like. But we should not expect to get copies of the original unedited footage and unpublished outtakes. Nor should we expect to get the source data for the computerized Jar Jar. Not that we would want ever want to.

If in one hounded years if someone wants to expand on the Jar Jar character it will be on them to recreate him, without the source material that created him in the first place. Just because it is difficult , or impossible to add to the �genius� ( or lack ) of that character without the source material does not mean we are entitled to it.

I can also see the benefit to society of having the source code at some time available to learn from. It really would be a shame if the truly clever and unique programming was lost to future generations. Perhaps the incentive you desire could be had by allowing a longer copyright to digital content that provided the source material you have been discussing, and shorter if you chose not to.

The problem is, Software companies will never be very motivated to make that source code part of the copyrighted work and available, as long as it is relatively trivial to take and use this material prior expiration of that copyright. Until you can guarantee that that source code is protected during that time, congress and the courts are unlikely to force it.

Andrew, I am one of your customers, And I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of changing serials. In my view, it means you are not selling software I can fairly use as long as I wish, but instead as long as you are in business and your servers are working. I don�t think it is wrong or immoral, but I do believe it places a higher burden and price on your software. I have lost serials in the past, and now have to use a password program to keep track. Your scheme is simply not worth the trouble of keeping track of the current and valid numbers.

[fprefect]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>Andrew, I am one of your customers, And I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of changing serials. In my view, it means you are not selling software I can fairly use as long as I wish, but instead as long as you are in business and your servers are working. I don�t think it is wrong or immoral, but I do believe it places a higher burden and price on your software. I have lost serials in the past, and now have to use a password program to keep track. Your scheme is simply not worth the trouble of keeping track of the current and valid numbers.</STRONG>

As mentioned earlier, we are working out the details for an escrow system that would enable our software if the company ever ceased to exist. If our servers go down, you can still contact us by phone, fax, or email to renew your code -- in which case, you don't need to know your previous code to get a new one.

Understand that most users don't save their license information, so we always see a large batch of requests after each major system update -- even before expiring codes. The automated system only benefits people who are conscientious enough to save their code.

[barney ntd]

A lot of the captain's arguments have depended on an analogy between software and literature. For example, he mentions Ran as a derivative of Lear. This is totally unlike the case of software: Kurosawa had to develop a Japanese setting for the story, adapt the main characters to that setting, create new minor characters, write a completely new script and so on before he even started filming. In the process he produced a great new work of art, which doesn't compete with the original, but complements it. He used ideas from Lear, but the majority of the work is original, and noone would accuse him of plagiarism.

The same kind of thing happens with software all the time: for example, Watson takes its basic idea (that of an application interface to multiple web services) from Sherlock. The result is a great new application which complements the original; but even if it reproduced all the features of Sherlock it would still not break copyright, because it is written from scratch. The authors did not have access to the Sherlock source code, but they were still able to produce a derivative work.

[moki]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>The only valid concern you've put forth here is being able to find infringers. </STRONG>

I've put forth many other valid concerns as well; that you chose to ignore them or don't understand them is perhaps the issue.

[moki]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>Andrew, I am one of your customers, And I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of changing serials. In my view, it means you are not selling software I can fairly use as long as I wish, but instead as long as you are in business and your servers are working. I don�t think it is wrong or immoral, but I do believe it places a higher burden and price on your software. I have lost serials in the past, and now have to use a password program to keep track. Your scheme is simply not worth the trouble of keeping track of the current and valid numbers.</STRONG>

You're actually illustrating one of the reasons why we decided it would be practical to go with our current system, that is, even before our license codes expired, people lost their codes all the time. They would contact on a daily basis for their license code already.

As I've also stated in this thread, we have burned a CD full of source code and will be putting it into escrow, to protect our customers if the worst happens to us. This is a step most companies wouldn't even bother with.

However, consider that you're just as much at risk using software from any company that has a serial number associated with it. If you lose your serial number and the company has gone out of business, you're out of luck, whether the code expires or not.

The way the software industry is now, you are granted a *license* to use the software, subject to the terms of the company that puts forth the license.

On a very practical level, nothing has changed with our expiring codes -- they only expire if you don't enter them. People lose their codes and ask us for new codes all the time; we've automated part of that now, and will automate more in the future.

The change we made affects one group of people: those people who are attempting to pirate license codes. As I think you can see from my first post in this thread, the effect is significant.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: moki ]

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
As I think you can see from my first post in this thread, the effect is significant.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</STRONG>

Well, I think that I've pointed out that you have _no way_ of knowing the true effect of this, in terms of lost sales, etc. So the effect may be the opposite of what you think.
And it has also been argued that whether that allows you to stop pirates or not is not the main issue. The method you chose is what is being argued. This thread has come down to a number of rationalizations and attempts to find good analogies. With the exception of a few honest, open minded posts, I've found little reason to think that Ambrosia's current scheme is nothing more than a method to improve profits regardless of the costs.
Again, I hate to make this comparison, but everyone's favorite Monopoly has the same attitude.
There _is_ a fine line between a reason and an excuse.

[hushmail]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>The best analogy I can think of would be a motion picture. Start Wars is going to be released this week. When its copyright expires you or I should be able to then make copies of the movie and distribute them as we like.</STRONG>

1. Most of us will be dead by the time Star Wars EP2 falls into public domain. The next time copyright on the Mickey Mouse is about to expire, corrupt US politicians will probably extend the copyright term again. So your children will probably also be dead by the time the copyright on SWEP2 expires.
2. The DVD will most likely be "protected" with CSS. You can't currently legally distribute DeCSS or other tools that decrypt DVDs in the Unites States of Freedom to End Up in Prison.
3. In other words, when the copyright on SWEP2 finally does expire, you will need high end hardware to actually copy the disc. The DVD format will be obsolete by then so you'll probably have to have the hardware custom made.

And don't think about moving to Europe, we're getting ****ed with the EUCD. Stay where you are and fight, and remember to donate to the EFF!

[moki]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

Well, I think that I've pointed out that you have _no way_ of knowing the true effect of this, in terms of lost sales, etc. So the effect may be the opposite of what you think.</STRONG>

You forget we have data to compare it to. We are on the right track.

[moki]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG> With the exception of a few honest, open minded posts, I've found little reason to think that Ambrosia's current scheme is nothing more than a method to improve profits regardless of the costs.
</STRONG>

It is about fairness, too, and not wanting people who have not paid for our software to reap the same benefits that those who have paid for it do.

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

It is about fairness, too, and not wanting people who have not paid for our software to reap the same benefits that those who have paid for it do.</STRONG>

Fair point. This I do subscribe to. The economic question is a lot more blurry.
The data you mentioned at the beginning of this thread only covers a small part of all the possible effects your policy has. I mentioned the potential loss from sales to people who rely on word-of-mouth and general exposure (something that piracy can help) as just one case which seems interesting to analyze. It's too boring to go into all the issues about price elasticities and externalities, but I just wanted to point out that, since you don't have any way of controlling the data, you don't know what would your sales have been if you didn't adopt this scheme. You just can't repeat this experiment.
If you have many years of data with different schemes, then you can add control variables, but its just too early to tell (no degrees of freedom, etc).

[climber]

Originally posted by hushmail:
<STRONG>

2. The DVD will most likely be "protected" with CSS. You can't currently legally distribute DeCSS or other tools that decrypt DVDs in the Unites States of Freedom to End Up in Prison.
3. In other words, when the copyright on SWEP2 finally does expire, you will need high end hardware to actually copy the disc. The DVD format will be obsolete by then so you'll probably have to have the hardware custom made.</STRONG>

That brings up an interesting question. I personally doubt the current laws against DeCSS will stand up in court in the long run. The movie industry is just so scared right now they will spend what ever it takes to keep it � on the books� There is a valid fair use for that program as well as the obvious illegal one. Most specifically, in ten years I may want to move my DVDs to an ipod5 so I can view them there.

Andrew, I appreciate your right to create a system that ensures only your customers can use your product. My question is how would you would react to a system like DeCSS that instead decoded or disabled the security measures in your software? In other words, if someone came out with a patch that disabled your security.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by brachiator:
<STRONG>[...] Moreover, under an anarcho-syndicalist system, what is to prevent people from accumulating property and using force to protect it? [...]</STRONG>

Hmmm... tough questions you posed...

Of course, there isn't room here to discuss them all; you can, however, find some interesting efforts at an explanation here:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html


For you (brachiator), moki and all Americans in this thread (and, in general, for everyone, of course), it could be interesting to read something about "individualist" anarchists (they were often Americans: Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, etc. - and so grew up in the US capitalistic "climate"):

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html


(BTW, I find that website quite well made and informative, so I really recommend it to those who might be interested in "philosophical" and practical political questions.)

... Human nature: I guess that if you think human nature is inherently "bad", that implies some form of capitalism and oppressive enforcement; if you think that human nature is dynamically perfectible and that human *culture* is a very good means to improve "nature", there is substantial hope for something better than capitalism... What should be obsolete, today, is the "traditional", negative concept of human nature!

P.S.: It would be really cool if Ambrosia could release some form of "virtual desktops" plugin to Mac OS X (even better if directly integrated into the OS, as a module, in cooperation with Apple), as was previously discussed in another thread; *optionally*, it could even be open source!

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[ohm^n]

The source code should be released into the public domain when it's term of copyright protection ends (currently life plus 70 years in the USA). Not releasing it into the public domain is breaking the social contract you make with society by using copyright. Copyright grants you a limited monopoly on that source code, on that program. No one else can use it or distribute it without your consent. In exchange for that limited monopoly, you agree that at some time, you will release your work into the public domain.

So yes moki, 90 years after the release of Escape Velocity (works owned by companies are given 90 years), that source code must be made available to everyone.

Am I incorrect?

[benb]

What the crap?

How do you people find these topics?

[Agent69]

Originally posted by hushmail:
1. Most of us will be dead by the time Star Wars EP2 falls into public domain.

No, ALL of us will be dead by that time, if it ever even happens. Corporations who have it in their interest to extend copyright terms have pretty much insured that nothing will ever again fall into the public domain. It is sad but it is a gleaming example of corporations having too much sway in the political system.