Self-interested fork problem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| 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]]. | ||