ownership

"Who owns the words?" Who does own them now? Who owns the music and the rest of our culture?

We do. All of us.

Though not all of us know it -- yet.

From Weird Magazine 7.2005

gpl'ed fonts

Intersting Discussion

Personally I do not believe fonts should be under the GPL. This automatically makes documents created with them 'derived works.' Font's, if anything, should be licensed under the LGPL, much like GCC and the C Libraries. There is no reason anything created with a font should be made into a derivative work.

Everything needs a font.

"What's wrong with Firefox isn't Firefox's fault!"

An article over at SearchEnterpriseLinux.com shows that there are indeed a good portion of people who still can not get all their work done in Firefox alone;

Mozilla Firefox is soothing nerves frayed by Microsoft Internet Explorer, thanks to superior search, security, bookmark synchronization and other capabilities, according to IT professionals responding to an informal SearchEnterpriseLinux.com survey.

Most of those Firefox users, however, are frustrated that Firefox is locked out of Web sites that are locked in to Microsoft Internet Explorer.

IE's hold on corporate Web sites has stymied some Firefox enthusiasts.

Kevin Banks, a developer for Crossroads Systems Inc. in Austin, Texas, and a self-proclaimed "micro-dollar hater," was originally thrilled to have an alternative to IE. But his happiness was short-lived.

"It was only a few days before I had to reluctantly fire up IE," Banks said. "The bottom line was not all sites I went to would work correctly with Firefox."

Banks tried to use both browsers for a day or so, using Firefox as his primary browser and only launching IE when he hit a non-working site. Then he realized that he was wasting space by building up two sets of Web site bookmarks. Now he's a reluctant user of IE and nothing else.

Consultant Richard Carriere blames site developers for taking the lazy, IE-only route. But he's not going to let their laziness separate him from what he believes is "a major browser" that is completely enterprise-ready.

The key point here is that site designs have to stop being lazy, and start adhearing to standards. Real corss-platform standards, not the drivil that is Internet Explorer. As more and more people convert, designers need to realize that they really can't alianate 1/10th of their potential user base. Abroad that number is even higher, slowly some major sites are starting to change, and with backing from Google and Yahoo we should soon see even more. I for one do not believe that Firefox needs to make itself more "IE-Compatible," I think designers need to make their sites more "internet accessable."

round two

Round Two is yet another example of a company hoping to capitalize on Open Source software, and providing solutions to end users.

New startup will offer innovative products and services to Firefox users, while sponsoring development of FlashGot, Bandwidth Tester, ExtensionsMirror and other projects

The Internet, 4/12/05 - Round Two, the first startup company 100% dedicated to offering user-friendly products and innovative services that complement and improve the Firefox web browsing experience, today introduced itself to the public, unveiling its corporate web site and announcing sponsorships of the popular FlashGot, Bandwidth Tester and SwitchProxy Firefox add-ons and the ExtensionsMirror.nl web site.

More and more companies are realizing that you can in fact make money selling solutions for Open Source development, and being a friend to the community.

As companies become less afraid of Open Source software, and start working with companies that are "FOSS Friendly" we will begin to see more of this.

software patents

The EU is considering implementing software patents much like they are in the US, recently a commentary was posted on Linux Insider:

Software Patents Help Small Companies

Critics argue that software patents favor large companies over small. This is not correct. There is no doubt that some large software companies have extensive patent portfolios. However, large companies enjoy many competitive advantages. It's hard to say how much of their success is due to patents.

A small company has few competitive advantages. Paradoxically, what advantages it has are often tied to its small size and short history. Not burdened by the heavy inertial often associated with large companies, a small company can often out innovate its larger competitors. But how can a small company prevent its competitors from pilfering its software innovations, once they hit the market?

To be successful in the marketplace, and maintain and build upon that success, small companies need a barrier of entry. Something to prevent competitors from moving into their technological turf. Patents provide that edge. Patents level the playing field, and provide small companies with the time they need to become large companies. Patents also add value because they help small companies raise money. Angels and VCs often want to see that a small company has secured its inventions via patents before making an investment.

Software Patents, Open Source Can Co-Exist

Open-source leaders argue that all software inventions should be freely available to all, and thus oppose software patents. But how is it equitable that a party should be forced to dedicate its property to the public domain? Software may be intellectual property, but it is still property.

A company should be able to maintain ownership of its software, just as it should be able to maintain ownership of its building, and the land that the building stands on. A neighbor might prefer that ownership be swept away, so as to build on an unoccupied portion of the company's land. But that view is shortsighted, because it puts the neighbor's property at risk.

There is no doubt that the open-source movement has produced great quantities of superior software. The enormous brain share that results from open-source has produced highly efficient, effective and robust code.

It's not that software patents are good, and open-source is bad, or vice versa. Instead, companies should have the right to elect one or the other. Prohibiting software patents means that companies cannot protect their inventions, and thus effectively forces everyone to open-source their software. The open-source leaders' position against software patents seems antithetical to their philosophy of freedom.

It's not that software patents themselves are a bad idea. I agree that every company deserves to make money, but two things at stake here. The first is that in their current form, software patents can last from 14 to 21 years, a ridiculous amount of time given the pace of technological advancement in the past 30 years. To have a hold on an idea or algorithm for 14 years is in itself insane. The way ideas and methods change in the industry today, to hold an idea for 14 years can actually stifle development rather than promote innovation. If someone can not pay the licensing fees to be able to use a peice of software/idea then how are they too going to get to market.

The second philosophy is that companies do not need to "sell the software or idea" to make money. We have seen with many open source companies, and companies that switch to open source, that it is not the idea that we need to sell anymore. It's being experts in that idea, and providing support for that idea. Companies are making money using this method, and it is unnecessary to have an archaic institution govern something that changes from month to month.

Perhaps there is a method where we can perhaps shorten the time these patents last, and also encourage the use of sharing ideas for the common good. Imagine the pace of development if that 'barrier to entry' did not exist. Rather than stifle innovators, encourage them by allowing them to freely grow upon the knowledge you provided, and in return you are getting that additional knowledge yourself. Rather than make money by being a monopoly, make money by being the best.

By the way, that 'philosophy of freedom' refers to the fact that you are free to do anything with the code, the mere fact that you patent it immediately conflicts this ideal. The point is for the software/idea to be free and always free, if it is patented you remove that inherit freedom. This is the central reason software patents conflict with the open source philosophy.

Linux Insider story

communism and "open information"

The software giant has come under fire for 'yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards'

An anti-patent organisation criticised Microsoft on Wednesday for filing a patent with a claimed similarity to IPv6, the next-generation Internet protocol.

"Microsoft won't ever assert this patent — they know it's worthless," said Ravicher. "But there will still be people who are afraid of it — if someone has a gun and promises not to shoot it, it's still scary."

"This is yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards," he said.

Reading things like this really make my wonder about my personal beliefs sometimes. I am not a communist, yet I truly believe in the ideal's of Open Software / Open Specifications / Open Standards. Sharing information is of paramount importance. Information should be free and open to all who are willing and able to receive it.

Does it make me communist to believe in that? I think it makes me an idealist, but not a communist. I still think that people should be able to profit from their ideas, but they should not restrict their use.

This is a gross oversimplification of an incredibly complicated topic. I really have to define my views on this. As time goes on I find myself draw more to companies that share in the "open philosophy" and away from others that do not. Take Google's mantra "Don't Be Evil." How great is that? I don't know, time will tell if these "movements" are here to stay, or if they are only "Fads."

I will have to work on this more when I am less tired.