[ruby-talk:12236] Re: Licensing, Intellectual Property, and Ruby code (longish)

I had a long interchange about licensing w/ Ben and the perl6 lic group.  I was
for a while completely obsessed w/ the issue, so it would be out-o-character if
I didn't drop my 0.02 cents.

( since then other things have arrived to make me even crazier :) 

Ben Tilly:
>...that if you want to do something like cut it to CD, you are going to have
> serious problems.  ...modules that cannot be used
> in commercial code, it is a mess.

> 
> > The one I'm leaning towards
> >is having the site's "Terms of Service" specify ...
> >the GNU Public
> >License (GPL).
> 
> Good idea.  Bad choice of license.

The general objection to the GPL is the perceived restriction on commercial use
of the code.  The criticism of the Artistic and Open Source licenses is that is
just business as usual.

Like the Communist Manifesto, I have purposely not read the GPL, for the simple
reason that these documents rarely work as they are designed, though I have
memorized much of the bill-o-rights 

Instead I look at the business interests as I like a healthy revenue stream.

Q: What is the commercial advantage of freely available software ??

A: In simple terms, any entrepreneur will tell you: "people don't want tools,
they want applications, or in most cases, data and entertainment (napster, 60
million users).

Now that you know there is no money in tools, the better strategy is to use the
"Perl model", where Larry showed us how to do it.  Everybody gets together to
build tools directly from the mind and heart for the benefit of the world,
clearly the Ruby model as well.  

This moves the profit layer up one level, making the whole industry more
viable.  At this point, the typical digital corporation could apply for
welfare, if you haven't noticed the present downdraft :(

Since all open licenses support this economic model, I see no reason for them
not to merge... at least around this one point:  
That we all strive YM_M4I5S3S_10 to avoid court room battles.

If you YM_M4I5S3S_11 yet know, GNOME is about to replace YM_M4I5S3S_12 on Sun
boxes.  YM_M4I5S3S_13 is about to allow GNU to colonize the Microsoft desktop
(now that we know we cant sink YM_M4I5S3S_14 w/o "fragging" YM_M4I5S3S_15
stocks).

Therefore the YM_M4I5S3S_16 has had no ill effect on commercial use and the
revenue process and this is why I support it... though of course I am looking
for a happy medium between the Artistic and YM_M4I5S3S_17 to allow unfettered
code sharing between Ruby, Perl6, Lisp, Python -- YM_M4I5S3S_18, and the gnu
YM_M4I5S3S_19 (tar in particular).  

In comparison, open source and the artistic licenses have apparently attracted
a host of unsavory characters, whereas the YM_M4I5S3S_20 has frightened them
away.

A final note is that GNU _is_ a brand, and brands are revenue.

Now about Ruby documentation:  I think at this point Ruby tools should be used
to document Perl6 and Ruby sites should handle all the QA issues including the
bug reports.  This YM_M4I5S3S_21 to slight Perl6 but to allow the gurus to
devote their entire cycles to the code development and to amalgamate a true
bond between perl6 and ruby above all personal, corporate and unsavory
interests.


=====
John van Vlaanderen

      #############################################
      #    CXN, Inc. Contact:  [e-mail]   #               #
      #      Proud Sponsor of Perl/Unix of NY     #
      #        http://puny.vm.com                 #                 
      #############################################

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/