[OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[amado.alves]

I like Kazakov's idea of, basically, selling warranty instead of bits.
However I see this problem: only BIG entities are capable of effectively providing warranty. So the model (if pushed by law) would put small developers out of business.

/* However I note that when a big company warrants some system (e.g. a airplane) that contains software, they are of necessity warranting the contained software,
parts of which might have been done by small companies. */

And why do you think the copyright system works poorly? Aren't zillions of creators living of them, some quite well? Why can't this work for software?

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:08:24 +0100, "amado.alves"
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>I like Kazakov's idea of, basically, selling warranty instead of bits.
>However I see this problem: only BIG entities are capable of effectively providing warranty. So the model (if pushed by law) would put small developers out of business.

They will become subcontractors. Nobody can earn money by soldering
DVD players in the garage. Market consolidates this or other way. Once
it happens, big players start to outsource.

>/* However I note that when a big company warrants some system (e.g. a airplane) that contains software, they are of necessity warranting the contained software,
>parts of which might have been done by small companies. */

Exactly.

>And why do you think the copyright system works poorly? Aren't zillions of creators living of them, some quite well?

Only a small minority of them. Actually big recording, movie
companies, publishing houses etc are robbing authors, forcing them to
sell their rights. What is even worse, they decide what will be
published. In fact it is a new kind of censorship, trying to form the
market to get maximal profit. We have to tolerate this only because we
do not know how to do it better.

> Why can't this work for software?

Because, now software development is maturing. Most of software
written requires no creativity at all, but rather engineering. What is
so interesting in MS-Word to deserve copyright protection? The idea of
text processing, or rather just the shape of buttons? The later could
be copyrighted, but not the software product as the whole.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> > Why can't this [copyright] work for software?
>
> Because, now software development is maturing. Most of software
> written requires no creativity at all, but rather engineering. What is
> so interesting in MS-Word to deserve copyright protection?

The source code? May not be "interesting" but is a the result of a lot of 
work.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Martin Krischik]

Hello,

> On Thu, 29 Apr 200originatorss +0100, "originatorss"
> <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> Only a small minority of them. Actualy, movie
> companies, publishing houses etc are robbing authors, forcing them to
> sell their rights. What is even worse, they decide what will be
> published. In fact it is a new kind of censorship, trying to form the
> market to get maximal profit. We have to tolerate this only because we
> do not know how to do it better.

Actually that is nor right - US law does not apply everywhere. In germany we
have "originators rights" instead of "copy right". The difference is that
when an originator sells a copy right he will still keep his originators
rights.

With Regards

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:45:30 +0100, Marius Amado Alves
<maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:

>> > Why can't this [copyright] work for software?
>>
>> Because, now software development is maturing. Most of software
>> written requires no creativity at all, but rather engineering. What is
>> so interesting in MS-Word to deserve copyright protection?
>
>The source code? May not be "interesting" but is a the result of a lot of 
>work.

Can you copyright a ditch? It is also a lot of work with a shovel. May
I have a look at?

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> Of course not, it's not an intelectual work. I fail to see your point.

Many software patents are not based intelectual work. They are so banal
that they can be equivalent to the ditch. These patents are there to
hinder competition.


-- 
Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

()  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
/\                                   - Isaac Asimov

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
> I don't think patents was the point. I know patenting ideas is problematic. 
> The issue is copyrighting source-code. I still fail to see why *that* is more 
> problematic than copyrighting, say, books.

Hmm I seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Everything
you do has your copyright so your source code is your copyright unles
you have sign an agreement giving it to your employer or another party.


-- 
Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

()  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
/\                                   - Isaac Asimov

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

On Friday 30 April 2004 14:48, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> > Of course not, it's not an intelectual work. I fail to see your point.
>
> Many software patents are not based intelectual work. They are so banal
> that they can be equivalent to the ditch. These patents are there to
> hinder competition.

I don't think patents was the point. I know patenting ideas is problematic. 
The issue is copyrighting source-code. I still fail to see why *that* is more 
problematic than copyrighting, say, books.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

On Friday 30 April 2004 15:40, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
> > I don't think patents was the point. I know patenting ideas is
> > problematic. The issue is copyrighting source-code. I still fail to see
> > why *that* is more problematic than copyrighting, say, books.
>
> Hmm I seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Everything
> you do has your copyright so your source code is your copyright unles
> you have sign an agreement giving it to your employer or another party.

I should have been more specific in my recapitulation. The issue was the 
copyright system as a (monetary) reward mechanism for authors. Kasakov's sees 
to hold an extreme position on this. Basically he says it doesn't work. I'm 
trying to understand this, because seemingly there is ample evidence to the 
contrary in the case of books at least. Consistent with his premise, Kasakov 
suggests software authors do not sell their work, but instead insurance. And 
that this model be enforced by law. I agree selling insurance is a good 
model, but I think enforcing it would make more harn than good. Another 
strong point in Kasakov's view is that software is now engineering, not art. 
I agree. But I still think you can copyright works of engineering. Insured or 
not.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> >>...What is
> >> so interesting in MS-Word to deserve copyright protection?
> >
> >The source code? May not be "interesting" but is a the result of a lot of
> >work.
>
> Can you copyright a ditch?

Of course not, it's not an intelectual work. I fail to see your point.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:21:12 +0100, Marius Amado Alves
<maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:

>On Friday 30 April 2004 15:40, Preben Randhol wrote:
>> On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
>> > I don't think patents was the point. I know patenting ideas is
>> > problematic. The issue is copyrighting source-code. I still fail to see
>> > why *that* is more problematic than copyrighting, say, books.
>>
>> Hmm I seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Everything
>> you do has your copyright so your source code is your copyright unles
>> you have sign an agreement giving it to your employer or another party.
>
>I should have been more specific in my recapitulation. The issue was the 
>copyright system as a (monetary) reward mechanism for authors. Kasakov's sees 
>to hold an extreme position on this. Basically he says it doesn't work. I'm 
>trying to understand this, because seemingly there is ample evidence to the 
>contrary in the case of books at least. Consistent with his premise, Kasakov 
>suggests software authors do not sell their work, but instead insurance. And 
>that this model be enforced by law.

Actually, my position is not so strong. I believe that "no warranty"
licenses has to be void in all cases where software differs from a
book. I.e. when software is bought not to entertain (cannot be
warranted), but to accomplish some work (can and should).

>I agree selling insurance is a good 
>model, but I think enforcing it would make more harn than good. Another 
>strong point in Kasakov's view is that software is now engineering, not art. 
>I agree. But I still think you can copyright works of engineering. Insured or 
>not.

No, talking in programming language terms you can copyright a type but
not its instance. So one can copyright an engineering decision, not an
example of its use. It would be a nonsense to copyright a car, but it
is what actually happens with software.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
:> ... I believe that "no warranty"
:> licenses has to be void...
: 
: I like the idea. Are there legal examples?

You seem not to read software license agreements! :-)


-- Georg

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 12:28:12 -0700, "Marius Amado Alves"
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>> ... talking in programming language terms you can copyright a type but
>> not its instance.
>
>In general yes, but there are a lot of fuzzy cases. Inheritance,
>prototype-bases languages, languages where types are first class objects,
>etc.

Then let's talk about second class objects! (:-))

>> So one can copyright an engineering decision, not an
>> example of its use. It would be a nonsense to copyright a car, but it
>> is what actually happens with software.
>
>Again, I believe the music example can help. Reward is due when the work is
>executed. So it works for items that can be executed. Music scores,
>programs, in a straightfoward way.

It might work, if there were an infrastructure ready to count runs.
However, I do not think that customers would enjoy a model of paying
per run. We see that people prefer DVD to concerts. And the major
problem is that to play music you need orchestra, musicians etc. It is
a lot of work and this is why it worked (before file swapping came).

>For cars, one can view the construction
>and sale of a batch of them as the execution of their blueprint. Similar to
>books.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> ... I believe that "no warranty"
> licenses has to be void...

I like the idea. Are there legal examples?

> ... talking in programming language terms you can copyright a type but
> not its instance.

In general yes, but there are a lot of fuzzy cases. Inheritance,
prototype-bases languages, languages where types are first class objects,
etc.

> So one can copyright an engineering decision, not an
> example of its use. It would be a nonsense to copyright a car, but it
> is what actually happens with software.

Again, I believe the music example can help. Reward is due when the work is
executed. So it works for items that can be executed. Music scores,
programs, in a straightfoward way.  For cars, one can view the construction
and sale of a batch of them as the execution of their blueprint. Similar to
books.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Marius Amado Alves]

> :> ... I believe that "no warranty"
> :> licenses has to be void...
> :
> : I like the idea. Are there legal examples?
>
> You seem not to read software license agreements! :-)

I read plenty. We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system
should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void, and (correct me if I'm
wrong), "void" means having no legal value whatsoever, which entails that
the user is not bound to it. Note that under this system a really big lot of
licenses would be void. Probably the status of the 'licensed' work would
fall back to normal copyright law.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> >Again, I believe the music example can help. Reward is due when the work
is
> >executed. So it works for items that can be executed. Music scores,
> >programs, in a straightfoward way.
>
> It might work, if there were an infrastructure ready to count runs.
> However, I do not think that customers would enjoy a model of paying
> per run.

That's indeed a problem, but it has a solution. You don't need to count
runs. The creator is certainly willing to cut a fair deal not requiring run
count. That's what happens when a recording company buys the copyright. When
I say reward is due from execution, I'm not saying it has to be a direct
scheme, just based on the idea. The reward should also be calculated
(negotiated) taking into account the monetary effects of running the work.
Creator A writes an e-commerce system. Client B runs the system to sell
whatever. A and B cut a deal, based on the expected revenues of B, the role
A's system plays there, or even with provisions to adjust the deal to the
evolution of B's business.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 15:02:31 -0700, "Marius Amado Alves"
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>> :> ... I believe that "no warranty"
>> :> licenses has to be void...
>> :
>> : I like the idea. Are there legal examples?
>>
>> You seem not to read software license agreements! :-)
>
>I read plenty. We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system
>should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void,

GPL will not be void, because GPLed products are not sold.

Precisely I meant that IF you sell a software product, then either 1)
you have to give something in return [in addition to the "right to
use"], or 2) the product automatically falls under some sort of
"default" license which grants rights to use, copy, modify, reverse
engineer it to everybody.

N.B. A software house is free to choose (2) and protect the product
using activation keys etc. But then, anybody would have right to crack
that protection.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 18:40:06 -0700, "Marius Amado Alves"
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>> >Again, I believe the music example can help. Reward is due when the work
>is
>> >executed. So it works for items that can be executed. Music scores,
>> >programs, in a straightfoward way.
>>
>> It might work, if there were an infrastructure ready to count runs.
>> However, I do not think that customers would enjoy a model of paying
>> per run.
>
>That's indeed a problem, but it has a solution. You don't need to count
>runs. The creator is certainly willing to cut a fair deal not requiring run
>count. That's what happens when a recording company buys the copyright.

This is robbing. 1. Nobody can estimate the count. 2. Creators, when
not renown, are treated unfair. 3. Milliards wasted on bureaucracy,
advertising, fusions, idiotic investments etc.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Marius Amado Alves]

> >...We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system
> >should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void,
>
> GPL will not be void, because GPLed products are not sold.

This under your proposed system, right? Because under the current system
selling is not required for a license to hold.

> Precisely I meant that IF you sell a software product, then either 1)
> you have to give something in return [in addition to the "right to
> use"], or 2) the product automatically falls under some sort of
> "default" license which grants rights to use, copy, modify, reverse
> engineer it to everybody.
>
> N.B. A software house is free to choose (2) and protect the product
> using activation keys etc. But then, anybody would have right to crack
> that protection.

Again, just to make sure, you're describing your proposed system, right?

Then it's strictly academic. It might not be a bad system, but it has no
chance of becoming real. It's too much against free market and copyright.
Which, like or not, are here to stay for a long time.

However, even in the current system, it is not clear that some licenses are
not void, or enforceable. For example, GPL has not been in court yet, and
some people including legal minds have doubts it will have any force there.

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:53:03 +0100, "Marius Amado Alves"
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>> >...We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system
>> >should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void,
>>
>> GPL will not be void, because GPLed products are not sold.
>
>This under your proposed system, right?

Yes. I think all are agree on how important FSF is.

>Because under the current system
>selling is not required for a license to hold.
>
>> Precisely I meant that IF you sell a software product, then either 1)
>> you have to give something in return [in addition to the "right to
>> use"], or 2) the product automatically falls under some sort of
>> "default" license which grants rights to use, copy, modify, reverse
>> engineer it to everybody.
>>
>> N.B. A software house is free to choose (2) and protect the product
>> using activation keys etc. But then, anybody would have right to crack
>> that protection.
>
>Again, just to make sure, you're describing your proposed system, right?

Yes, an imaginary system, though ACT seems successfully working within
something similar to that.

>Then it's strictly academic. It might not be a bad system, but it has no
>chance of becoming real. It's too much against free market and copyright.

No more than everything else. Copyright is rather an exception when
compared with other things sold and bought on free market. Then I
don't see copyright as a sacred cow. The story of DCMA indicates shows
to which dangerous aberration this idea may lead. It should be
publicly rethought whether copyright and patent law respond their
intention: to reward creators in the public interest.

>Which, like or not, are here to stay for a long time.

I would not be so sure. The present model is so inefficient that in
some period of time it would be impossible to keep on with software
development [of exponentially growing complexity]. Note that all
economical growth will depend on software developing. At this moment
either we will be able to drastically improve software quality, safety
and reuse, or our civilisation will collapse.

>However, even in the current system, it is not clear that some licenses are
>not void, or enforceable. For example, GPL has not been in court yet, and
>some people including legal minds have doubts it will have any force there.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:50:12 -0400, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG"
<warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:53:03 +0100, "Marius Amado Alves"
>> <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>...snip...
>
>> I would not be so sure. The present model is so inefficient that in
>> some period of time it would be impossible to keep on with software
>> development [of exponentially growing complexity]. Note that all
>> economical growth will depend on software developing. At this moment
>> either we will be able to drastically improve software quality, safety
>> and reuse, or our civilisation will collapse.
>...
>> Dmitry Kazakov
>> www.dmitry-kazakov.de
>
>This is an interesting point: perhaps for reasons you didn't intend. If
>as you say, software continues to grow (exponentially or not), then
>one must continue to build upon a foundation. Eventually, the focus
>must shift away from the foundation to the new development on the
>higher levels because all programming resources are limited.
>
>So..
>
>If your foundation is a proprietary one, then it will likely stagnate
>eventually. A corporation's interest (say M$) and resources will move
>to the areas of new development, since that is where all the creativity
>and competition will lie. The foundation meanwhile, will tend to be
>neglected and remain the same (save for bug fixes etc.) This tends
>to be the natural consequence of any foundation that you want to
>build on (you want to discourage change).
>
>The open sourced situation isn't much different, except that you do
>have the choice to go back and experiment with the foundation, if it
>makes sense to (a new idea occurs). This is possible because of the
>source code, of course.
>
>But all of this really suggests to me that all foundations, will
>eventually become commodity items. Commodity items will likely
>include source code, since the priorities will not be there. So
>companies like HP, will likely someday drop HPUX, and continue
>with Linux, since it will be cheaper for them in the long run
>(less O/S to maintain, apart from hardware issues). The same
>argument can be made for higher level items like compiler
>tools.
>
>For M$ to give away the source code now, seems inconceivable. But
>eventually I can see them doing so because it will actually be in
>their best interest to do so. When the pyramid of software gets
>large enough, no one will want to significantly change the foundation
>anyway (it will risk breaking everything above it). They will be
>focused upon the things that are on upper levels where all the
>"action" is.

A terrifying picture.

>This is the only way that I can see this pyramid of general purpose
>software moving forward over the long haul. The programming resources
>are always going to be limited, so the emphasis of the development
>has to change from lower levels to higher levels.
>
>For this to happen, it tends to demand that the reliability of the
>foundation layers improve!

If the picture is true, then sooner or later it will collapse anyway.
Actually the pyramid is upturned. A growing number of larger and
larger layers are balancing on the nose. One cannot do it
indefinitely.

Additionally to reliability one have to ensure a steady progress of
the technology of programming. This way one will be able to replace
parts of the pyramid as they rotting.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:50:12 -0400, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG"
> <warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote:
>>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:53:03 +0100, "Marius Amado Alves"
>>><amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>>...snip...
>>>I would not be so sure. The present model is so inefficient that in
>>>some period of time it would be impossible to keep on with software
>>>development [of exponentially growing complexity]. Note that all
>>>economical growth will depend on software developing. At this moment
>>>either we will be able to drastically improve software quality, safety
>>>and reuse, or our civilisation will collapse.
>>...
>>>Dmitry Kazakov
>>>www.dmitry-kazakov.de
...
>>For M$ to give away the source code now, seems inconceivable. But
>>eventually I can see them doing so because it will actually be in
>>their best interest to do so. When the pyramid of software gets
>>large enough, no one will want to significantly change the foundation
>>anyway (it will risk breaking everything above it). They will be
>>focused upon the things that are on upper levels where all the
>>"action" is.
> 
> A terrifying picture.

I cannot know what aspects of this terrify you, but certainly there
are some areas for concern (lack of improving reliability for one).

I also see this to be more of a trend, rather than an absolute thing.
There will always be some Operating System (foundation) research
happening, but I do believe that the overall emphasis will move
away from it.

>>This is the only way that I can see this pyramid of general purpose
>>software moving forward over the long haul. The programming resources
>>are always going to be limited, so the emphasis of the development
>>has to change from lower levels to higher levels.
>>
>>For this to happen, it tends to demand that the reliability of the
>>foundation layers improve!
> 
> If the picture is true, then sooner or later it will collapse anyway.
> Actually the pyramid is upturned. A growing number of larger and
> larger layers are balancing on the nose. One cannot do it
> indefinitely.

Whether or not it can be sustained indefinitely or not, is largely
a function of design, I think. I suppose, also that if the design
is constrained at the higher levels, then one must revisit the
foundations to make it possible. If there is enough
of this going on, then perhaps the trend I have painted is
unrealistic. But if I was betting on this horse race, I would
bet on the scenario that I previously mentioned.

There is also the argument that the design may be so constraining
at some future point, that as you say, will cause it all to
collapse. When that happens, then obviously the foundation must
be revisited with new requirements in mind, and rebuilt from
scratch.

I guess the fundamental question is whether or not
new designs will apply safe tools (languages) or not.

> Additionally to reliability one have to ensure a steady progress of
> the technology of programming. This way one will be able to replace
> parts of the pyramid as they rotting.

Perhaps we'll actually see this someday (one can hope, anyhow).
Perhaps someone will take the Windows foundation (for example),
and replace it with a predominantly Ada/SPARK version of the
same. The same could be said about other foundational software
(but I wouldn't bet on this horse!)

I do agree that reliability and security are two extremely
important fronts that need continued development.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk