In article <CrCdndXVEoj1Q0_anZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Robert Miller <rsmiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In an earlier thread Richard Owlette wrote:
>
><< Yeah *BUT*
>Doty and Coughlin demand source be published if it is claimed that Forth
>code is "shareable". That code is proprietary is irrelevant to them. The
>exist in an academic fantasy land. Lots of programmers publish code in
>XYZ because their goal is proving a point and publi****ng allows others
>to *DUPLICATE* their work. Seems Forth gets used where goal is
>COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL advantage. >>
>
>While I can certainly see sharing code to be generally advantageous to
the
>Forth (or any other language)programming community, notwithstanding
examples
>like Linux, I have some difficulty seeing how it could work well in
>practice. The problem with copyright is that , thanks in part to Disney,
>copyright (which costs the holder nothing) now extends to the heirs and
>succesors of the original copyright holder for something like 70 years.
>Compare that to a patent that can cost tens of thousands of dollars (in
each
>jurisdiction) and lasts for only 20 years from date of application.
>
>One problem I see is owner****p. Where the code is written by a hobbiest,
>there is clearly no issue with owner****p of the code being copylefted.
>However, most software is written either by wage-slaves or under
contract.
>Under copyright law work done for hire is the property of the employer.
No
>business is likely to have close enough supervision to ensure that the
>individual programmer who created some brilliant algorithm doesn't
release
>it under a copyleft license. Since, unlike a patent, there is no
apparent
Where algorithms are not copyrightable, the brilliant programmer is
fully entitled to recreate the program in his spare time, and
copyright the resulting program. The remainder of the reasoning
is a non-sequitur. It is left in so that people can retrace any
wrong conclusion they have drawn.
>burden of proof of either originality or owner****p, one wonders how much
of
>what currently released under copyleft license never actually belonged to
>the copyleft holder in the first place? And following from that, how
would
>a genuine author of copylefted material claim compensation for any
>subsequent commercial use - if he was even able do identify such?
>
>It seems to me that the only workable alternatives are either to keep
code
>secret and proprietary - probably difficult to impossible in the internet
>era - or to release it to the public domain. I suspect most businesses,
>having paid to have the code produced, will chose to attempt the former.
In microsoft dreams!
>
>Bob
>
Groetjes Albert.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
|
