Problems with free software and open source models: Difference between revisions
Problems with free software and open source models (edit)
Revision as of 21:21, 24 March 2004
, 24 March 2004"no power" -> "no practical power", also Java example
(basic issue list... will take some searches to find more) |
("no power" -> "no practical power", also Java example) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:''position'' - there should be quite specific hard restrictions on use of any [[Consumerium License]] software, at least, what a [[Consortium license]] tends to contain: "no using this software to set up your own competing consortium." | :''position'' - there should be quite specific hard restrictions on use of any [[Consumerium License]] software, at least, what a [[Consortium license]] tends to contain: "no using this software to set up your own competing consortium." | ||
2. ''issue'' - No party with power to sue. Under [[GPL]] and other free software licenses, "the community" is assumed to exist and have some powers of persuasion, but they have no powers to actually force the license terms to be met. Consortium and private licenses, and some open source licenses like the [[BSD]], specify exactly who can and must act to protect license integrity. | 2. ''issue'' - No party with power to sue. Under [[GPL]] and other free software licenses, "the community" is assumed to exist and have some powers of persuasion, but they have no practical powers to actually force the license terms to be met. What rights they have are not enforceable since they lack a [[self-funding]] model that would reward enforcers or even require cooperation from contributors whose work is appropriated. For example, most GPL abusers simply thumb their noses at the FSF, knowing they cannot possibly be sued given limits on FSF resources. They could settle out of court for less than theya re making from violating the license anyway, in the worst case, or agree to simply work around or re-engineer the software. By contrast: Consortium and private licenses, and some open source licenses like the [[BSD]], specify exactly who can and must act to protect license integrity. And some like [[Java]] have proven successful even at shutting down [[Microsoft]]'s attempted license abuse. | ||
:''position'' - the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should have the power to sue those who abuse the license terms. Anyone else might have the right to sue for harms done by that abuse, and the CGO should be obligated to provide certain help. For instance, an organic jam maker whose product is shoved off the shelves by a commercial food enterprise that deliberately tries to create confusion in the Consumerium system with competing software, should be able to make claims and have them supported by the CGO in the courts. | :''position'' - the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should have the power to sue those who abuse the license terms. Anyone else might have the right to sue for harms done by that abuse, and the CGO should be obligated to provide certain help. For instance, an organic jam maker whose product is shoved off the shelves by a commercial food enterprise that deliberately tries to create confusion in the Consumerium system with competing software, should be able to make claims and have them supported by the CGO in the courts. | ||