Subject: Re: Charging the Charger
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:54:06 +0900

>>>>> "Marshall" == Marshall W Van Alstyne <marshall@MIT.EDU> writes:

    Marshall> What we're proposing isn't far from BSD,

No, any copyleft must be worlds away from BSD.  What it is close to is
LGPL, with a bit of FDL mixed in.  From the point of view of copyleft
advocates it's an improvement over the LGPL because it doesn't permit
permament "escapes".  The FDL angle is that for this to "work" the
original owner would have to specify a maximum term, thus creating a
compatibility-ordered family.  Since it would be a total order, it
would decrease employment for free software lawyers, but you'd still
have the problem that the whole would presumably be restricted to the
least permissive license.  This situation is aptly called an
"anti-commons".

Aside: This whole line of revision reminds me of the mid-1970s, when
a Marxian economist reinvented convex programming.

"Production functions" and "marginal analysis" were bourgeois
analytical tools, so they couldn't use them.  But Marx himself used
linear activity analysis (although, having never met von Neumann, he
didn't know that it was called that), so this bright radical economist
realized that the intersection of linear constraints was a convex set,
so the boundary could be interpreted as a well-defined function, and
took the number of constraints to the limit.

And thus was the formerly banned practice of taking derivatives
rehabilitated.  I can similarly see the formerly deprecated practice
of closing your code being gradually rehabilitated....


-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.