Self-interested fork problem - Revision history

66.163.19.92 at 04:16, 25 November 2003

2003-11-25T04:16:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 25 November 2003
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Consortium license]]s tend to have the strongest and most specific restrictions on self-interested forks. Since they also have a [[Governance Organization]] that is independent, [[self-funding]], and capable of suing, they can actually stomp out self-interested forks, e.g. Java consortium kept Microsoft from calling their libraries "Java" using the license and trademark.		[[Consortium license]]s tend to have the strongest and most specific restrictions on self-interested forks. Since they also have a [[Governance Organization]] that is independent, [[self-funding]], and capable of suing, they can actually stomp out self-interested forks, e.g. Java consortium kept Microsoft from calling their libraries "Java" using the license and trademark.

	The self-interested fork problem shows up in some [[worst cases]] and more than a few [[threats]]. To write one's own [[Consumerium buying signal]] will not only be a temptation, in some "businesses", it will be the only way to survive. These of course are exactly the businesses we do not want to survive, where "we" admittedly is [[factionally defined]].		The self-interested fork problem shows up in some [[worst cases]] and more than a few [[threats]]. To write one's own [[Consumerium buying signal]] will not only be a temptation, in some "businesses", it will be the only way to survive. These of course are exactly the businesses we do not want to survive, where "we" admittedly is [[factionally defined]]. [[Guild]]-based [[service model]]s may have trouble defending themselves against self-interested fork.

	[[Faction]]s are themselves an attempt to define and control self-interest in [[Consortium license]] definition. By creating the [[Consumerium License]] as a [[parametric license]] and providing a [[glossary]] of terms that factions can control for themselves, we hope to make it easier to work within the [[Consumerium Services]] than to duplicate them, but not so much easier that we effectively lose control of the [[centrally controlled information economy]] we need to keep [[authoritative integrity]] ([[validation]]) and [[investigative integrity]] ([[audit]]). [[Definitive integrity]] is an issue also, but not one of self-interest, and handled differently for each of the [[licensed deliverables]].		[[Faction]]s are themselves an attempt to define and control self-interest in [[Consortium license]] definition. By creating the [[Consumerium License]] as a [[parametric license]] and providing a [[glossary]] of terms that factions can control for themselves, we hope to make it easier to work within the [[Consumerium Services]] than to duplicate them, but not so much easier that we effectively lose control of the [[centrally controlled information economy]] we need to keep [[authoritative integrity]] ([[validation]]) and [[investigative integrity]] ([[audit]]). [[Definitive integrity]] is an issue also, but not one of self-interest, and handled differently for each of the [[licensed deliverables]].

142.177.82.78: linking to allow for exact def'n of self-interested fork, since this has come up in a few places as an issue

2003-11-24T09:27:29Z

linking to allow for exact def'n of self-interested fork, since this has come up in a few places as an issue

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''self-interested fork problem''' is a variant of the [[bad copy problem]] where what is "bad" is simply the dilution of [[improvement]]s and the loss of a [[standard]]. The fork/copy itself may be quite good, even better than the original. However, anyone self-interested enough to fork it may also be self-interested enough to seek independent [[copyright]] or [[patent]] or even some [[trademark]] which prevent the original group from pursuing the same paths of development.		The '''[[self-interested fork]] problem''' is a variant of the [[bad copy problem]] where what is "bad" is simply the dilution of [[improvement]]s and the loss of a [[standard]]. The fork/copy itself may be quite good, even better than the original. However, anyone self-interested enough to fork it may also be self-interested enough to seek independent [[copyright]] or [[patent]] or even some [[trademark]] which prevent the original group from pursuing the same paths of development.

	[[Free software]] actively tries to prevent self-interested forks, by [[required reintegration]] - often this is called a [[viral license]]. [[Open source]] was created by people who wanted self-interested forks to occur and also did not see the [[bad copy problem]] as an issue at all.		[[Free software]] actively tries to prevent self-interested forks, by [[required reintegration]] - often this is called a [[viral license]]. [[Open source]] was created by people who wanted self-interested forks to occur and also did not see the [[bad copy problem]] as an issue at all.

142.177.82.78 at 08:24, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T08:24:53Z

New page

The '''self-interested fork problem''' is a variant of the [[bad copy problem]] where what is "bad" is simply the dilution of [[improvement]]s and the loss of a [[standard]]. The fork/copy itself may be quite good, even better than the original. However, anyone self-interested enough to fork it may also be self-interested enough to seek independent [[copyright]] or [[patent]] or even some [[trademark]] which prevent the original group from pursuing the same paths of development.

[[Free software]] actively tries to prevent self-interested forks, by [[required reintegration]] - often this is called a [[viral license]]. [[Open source]] was created by people who wanted self-interested forks to occur and also did not see the [[bad copy problem]] as an issue at all.

[[Consortium license]]s tend to have the strongest and most specific restrictions on self-interested forks. Since they also have a [[Governance Organization]] that is independent, [[self-funding]], and capable of suing, they can actually stomp out self-interested forks, e.g. Java consortium kept Microsoft from calling their libraries "Java" using the license and trademark.

The self-interested fork problem shows up in some [[worst cases]] and more than a few [[threats]]. To write one's own [[Consumerium buying signal]] will not only be a temptation, in some "businesses", it will be the only way to survive. These of course are exactly the businesses we do not want to survive, where "we" admittedly is [[factionally defined]].

[[Faction]]s are themselves an attempt to define and control self-interest in [[Consortium license]] definition. By creating the [[Consumerium License]] as a [[parametric license]] and providing a [[glossary]] of terms that factions can control for themselves, we hope to make it easier to work within the [[Consumerium Services]] than to duplicate them, but not so much easier that we effectively lose control of the [[centrally controlled information economy]] we need to keep [[authoritative integrity]] ([[validation]]) and [[investigative integrity]] ([[audit]]). [[Definitive integrity]] is an issue also, but not one of self-interest, and handled differently for each of the [[licensed deliverables]].