Subject: Re: Open Source in E-Commerce
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:19:28 +0000 (/etc/localtime)

>>>>> "Bernard" == Bernard Lang <> writes:

    Bernard> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 03:52:43AM +0000, Stephen
    Bernard> J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> However, some large companies are sufficiently large that they
    >> could create an approximation to an internal open source
    >> ecology without giving up proprietary rights.  And as Greg
    >> Aharonian pointed out in the post quoted by Karsten, this could
    >> also be implemented in a proprietary framework via the patent
    >> system.

    Bernard> but contribute for free to something that is wholly owned
    Bernard> by someone else at the expense of society ... that is
    Bernard> silly.

You're confusing "free speech" (ie, open source of "patented"
programs) with "free beer" (reviewers not being rewarded).

If proprietary rights can be enforced without keeping the
implementation secret, then reviewers can be (and will be) paid by the
proprietor, and downstream implementors can share revenue with the
upstream patent-holder.

Society may still not want to use patents that way (and most FSB types
will reject it out of hand, I expect), but it's not "silly."

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."