Re: draft legal ideas

sorry .. ended up sending this to Zach and not the list ..

* Zach Welch [[email protected]] [2003-08-11 13:15 -0700]:

I also wish to state my desire to have zynot be distributed under the
GPL-v2 only and concur with Galik re derivative code.

[snip]
> == Source Licensing - The Crux ==
> 
> I just came across the following site and FAQ, and this excerpt
> reflects my desires for Zynot:
> 
> """
> We also believe that our software may be of interest to commercial
> entities that will want to combine Chandler code with other software,
> which may be either open source or proprietary software. We want to
> encourage commercial use and distribution of Chandler since these
> activities may provide a wider market, additional functionality, more
> choices, and broader benefit for end users. Thus our software will also
> be available under a fee-based commercial license for those who wish to
> combine Chandler code with proprietary code. The potential revenue
> stream derived from the commercial licenses will be used to fund core
> development and maintenance of the open source code base.
> """
> Source: http://www.osafoundation.org/OSAF_Corporate_FAQ.htm

While I have no objection to business per se, I do have issues with the
shrinking boundaries of the public domain/commons and the socio, economic
and political repercussions of same.

It is clear that intellectual property laws have the ability to
privatize a number of our culture's basic semiotic and symbolic
resources and take them out of the public domain. This exclusion of
rights (or perhaps "access" would be a less legalistic term) to publicly
developed resources engenders (or, a major contributing factor of) the
material conditions (inequity) that the majority of this planets
inhabitants exist under.

The hubris of private ownership has given us "Vodaphone Red" and "KLM
Blue" (both legally enforceable copyrights) the question is what possible
"choice[s], and broader benefit" to the public sphere do these give?
IBM has calculated that there are only 2.28 million discernible colors,
how many Rajistani carpet weavers would even know of this research or
what "Vodaphone" is? Regardless, the semiotic gold rush continues.

Given what we see in terms of American "pro-business" and how it shapes
foreign policy, it is not that far fetched to see the development of
the legal framework for dividing the spoils as more akin to class war
than free market.

[snip]
> and 2) we lost someone interested in being involved on the law team
> because they view this as incompatible with their desire for a 100% GPL
> distribution.  I was sorry to see them go, but this is an ultimate
> component of the "pro-business" aspects of the distribution - one that
> I believe can not afford to be ignored.

This suggests it's a done deal? Why would this person be leaving otherwise?

> While I hope to see the marketplace shift to a mindset that fully
> accepts open source software licenses, I do not believe that time will
> come soon, and the existance of such opportunities for businesses does
> not mean the foundation will pursue non-GPL licensing terms in any
> cases.  In fact, I will personally work to see that all derived works
> are available under the GPL, excluding as little as possible to meet the
> specific needs of businesses that desire other terms.

I would see the public domain as a priority and business as secondary,
particularly given the Zynot Foundations non-for-profit basis.

Perhaps there is more room for discussion but I for one would want to
see Zynot (both as a social organization and as a code repository)
emphasize a broader social commitment and lessen the emphasis on
business. That is not to diminish those who see their involvement
as concurrent with thier own bussiness interests, but to counter what I
believe is a systemic and unworkable social and political reality.

best

cal

-