Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-bizcom - Re: [Cc-bizcom] Greetings list!

cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marshall Van Alstyne <marshall AT MIT.EDU>
  • To: cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-bizcom] Greetings list!
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:30:53 -0400

Ryan thanks for your participation. This RL experience is highly valuable. So on to a few questions :) ...

At 03:02 PM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
My concept of the split was like a word processor and the book you write
on it. If the code for the word processor is open, everyone can make it
work better, and positive change will create a momentum for overall
improvement. But my book is my personal work, from which I expect to
extract value in the form of compensation. I don't want the output of
the word processor to be open, otherwise I'll kill the value
proposition.

This "feels" right to me. I also note that the same issue comes up even with programs like GCC where the extensions to the compiler itself fall under GPL but programs compiled with GCC do not.

But let me play devil's advocate

Can anyone provide the word processor/book or compiler/executable intuition with a principled theoretical or economic argument? The reason I ask is that the dividing lines are not always clear. When should this principle bind?

At one extreme, a book or compiled executable need not include *any* code or content from the tool used to produce it. In that case, any number of similar tools could have produced it and there seems to be no special debt to terms in using the tool.

Suppose, however, that the output itself was only possible with one particular tool (say the very 1st compiler). Suppose further, that the output starts to include bits from the tool (say parts of the executable). When does the new work no longer differ enough from the tool or from some other form of content?

There is actually less and less of this kind of behavior because the
publishers as a group are becoming more aware of the concept of shared
utility. There's an economic incentive for them to collaborate - they
all want to use each other's work. This is a social impetus, not a
license-driven trend, and if someone proves a business model that shows
disregarding the value of the "cathedral" makes money, it could be lost.
But so far, the trend has been in a positive direction.

FWIW, a piece of economic modeling we're doing seeks to show why they really *should* collaborate. There's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma in that each wants to share the other's work but not necessarily to share their own. But, the whole system benefits if each does share.

I had the advantage of total crisis. The D&D brand was nearly dead when
I got my hands on it, and the company had spent tens of millions of
dollars to acquire it. In such extreme circumstances, management is
often willing to cast caution to the winds on a "hail Mary" type play.
It didn't hurt that the CEO, Peter Adkison, could see the long term
value to himself personally of being able to use D&D in commercial
products regardless of his relationship to the company that owned it.
In fact, Wizards of the Coast's first product (written by Peter) was a
book that endeavored to create a unified system for many RPGs and which
was battered by real and threatened litigation as a result.

Again, very cool RL experience. I just hope this isn't what it takes to get mgmt attn.

MVA





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page