Frederick Noronha forwarded:
I see nothing wrong in a person making money out of intellectual property that he has created as the person who creates IP is
Well, I am am postgraduate in commercial law, and 'Intellectual property' was one of the subjects. I can assure you that the term applies to seven different concepts; they are:-
1. literary, artistic and scientific works, 2. performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts, 3. inventions in all fields of human endeavor, 4. scientific discoveries, 5. industrial designs, 6. trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations, 7. protection against unfair competition,
You will notice that at least last two have nothing 'intellectual' about them. The term 'intellectual property' therefore is misleading; rather a misnomer. We will be better off sticking to the term 'copyright' and 'patent' as the context requires.
It may be interesting to know that 'intellectual property' is a very recent term; in the older text books, these concepts were known by the name 'incorporeal property' or 'unreal' property.
creating value which did not exist before. The idea is similar to a farmer who uses land and freely available rain and sunlight to grow new crops.
Value for whom? Unlike the farmer, whose efforts bear (literally) fruit, 'creators' of copyrights express something; patents are issued in respect of 'dis-coveries' (bringing to light some pre-existing thing), and trade marks and allied concepts merely create an illusion of value. Your analogy is totally wrong.
The real issue here is whether the possession of IP puts the person in a position to exploit others. ..... at a price which people of developing countries cannot afford The gap between the haves and havenot's further increases
Yes and no. It is not an issue of afford ability or money alone. It is an issue of swatantrata. Possession of knowledge always enables you to exploit others, the issue is one of 'protection' of that knowledge. Should others permitted to use that knowledge? If so to what extent? And that is the issue.
The great thing about GPL (GNU Public License) is that it assures contributing members that their contributions remain protected.
The GNU General Public License. It is the GNU GPL.
Once again, yes and no. It protects not only the programmers, but also the public.
when they feel that their contributions will not be commercially exploited.
add the word 'by others' to that.
.... only way a person can make money from GPl'ed software is by 1)training people to use it and 2) distributing it .
That is precisely how non GPL'ed s/w too makes money. There are more ads for training people for being MCSEs out there. I have seen an occasional ad for RHCE training. Will somebody please show me an ad for GNU/Linux training?
... i have to make my software difficult to use so that i can earn from it.
Law of free market will apply here. If it is difficult to use, users will reject it. Some say Free s/w is 'free' as in 'free market'.
As regards to 2) How much money can you actually make by distributing GPL'ed software?
In the November issue of a popular magazine, I saw a Linux based (dunno if it is GNU/Linux) product advertised for Rupees 120,000/-. ( number twelve, followed by four zeros) for non - Indians on the list, that is approx 23,000 US dollars.
The only way the software creator can earn from his creation is by restricting certain freedoms
What freedoms do (for example) Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, etc etc restrict in respect of software created by them?
According to me even creating proprietory software is not bad as long as the creator does'nt intend to exploit users or divide society.
Unfortunately, results do not always correspond with intentions.
i developed for a commercial store because the owner of commercial store is unlikely to be interested in it as long as it increases his productivity.In fact, the commercial store is in a position to exploit me if i provide provide him with freedoms to distribute, copy and modify the software and its source.
One fine morning, you increase your fee by say, ten fold, and if the client has no access to the code, he will have to either pay up, or hire somebody else to start from scratch.
On second thoughts, I will be more point blank. You need not increase the fee. What if your Maker decides to 'summon' you without any advance notice? :(
When i go to a service station i dont provide the blueprint of the car to him.Even if he has the blueprint he still does not have means to reproduce it.
You cannot do something similar in respect of software. The design of older and most current cars can be identified by physical examination. The problem which arises in respect of s/w has started to occur in respect of some highly advanced cars, with on-board computers. Already, in developed countries, smaller service stations and consumer activists have started demanding access to source code for on-board computers and other electronic systems.
Regards, Mahesh T. Pai.