[cc-community] by-nd for software
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Oct 22 10:35:11 EDT 2007
NikNot wrote:
> it is only about the integrity. Based on our observations,
> the current model of "community maintained" software
> is in many instances just as inadequate as would be a
> public transit systems where the passengers are
> maintaining the buses.
Please cite references. Which "observations"?
What you say flies in the face of all documented evidence of software
quality that I am aware of.
Community maintained software is, from all available evidence that I can
find, inevitably superior and better supported, given the same size of
user base. I acknowledge that there *may* be niche exceptions to this
rule-of-thumb -- but I haven't encountered one yet.
OTOH, it *is* true that the quality of free software support IMPROVES
with the size of the userbase (because the users are the resource
providing support), while proprietary (single-source) software DECLINES
with the size of the userbase (too many people consuming a limited
resource).
So, if you have a software application that no one (or very few people)
care about, then indeed, you can expect support to be limited. But in
that case, it is very unlikely that your support center will be
overwhelmed. Certainly *forcing* everyone to go to you for help will not
make things better (and since you have no revenue stream from software
sales, you can't make it up the way proprietary vendors do).
> I'm only
> stating that this is the case with ~this particular~ product.
> We might have to write our own license (one where no
> passenger is either required or allowed on the bus with a
> wrench),
I think that analogy pretty much demonstrates the problem with your idea:
"""
PROBLEM: Maintenance is poor
COMMUNITY SOLUTION:
* "Give everybody a wrench, hope they fix it"
PROPRIETARY SOLUTION:
* "Tax all the users, pay somebody with a lot of wrenches to do all
the fixing"
YOUR SOLUTION:
* "Ban wrenches. No users are allowed to fix it and you can't afford
to pay someone to fix it."
"""
I hope you can see why this sounds like a bad plan? :-)
The only exception I can see to this is if you have massive foundation
or tax-based funding to provide total support. But if you have that, you
certainly don't need a special license to hang on to your position of
authority over the software.
> but we would prefer to use an existing, recognizable
> one if such exists: that would save those (especially those
> who want to use the software in a commercial product)
> "the hassle to study the yasl" ("yet-another-software-license").
Such licenses aren't published, because they are known not to work.
Experienced free software developers know this. The few projects that
have been licensed in this way have died quiet, ignominious deaths.
What's more, they also know that the situation of having a single,
trusted source to maintain a piece of software is a social norm that is
achieved without coersion -- it's the "lazy" solution. So, you certainly
don't need to enforce it.
On the other hand, if you do enforce it, you create a trap: what if you
no longer CAN maintain the software? Just like a proprietary business,
you can go out of business or discontinue the product. At that point,
you kill not only your own work, but also all contributed help to your
project.
No one wants to throw their labor away, so they don't help you in the
first place.
The ability to fork a project is a form of insurance against such an
eventuality. It is rarely used, because it's intrinsically a major pain
to do. So it only gets used when it is really necessary.
So, I ask again -- you're making an extraordinary claim, where's your
extraordinary evidence?
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list