Is open sourcing a good idea?

In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>Using what knowledge? I assume you mean to say you created these
>working solutions in a vaccuum? What are you building, stone wheels?

Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
news:bn5dum$s6u$2@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> >
> >Using what knowledge? I assume you mean to say you created these
> >working solutions in a vaccuum? What are you building, stone wheels?
>
> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and money to
write a program, you open the source, and instead of people inputting new
ideas and improving the program they just take your code and use it, there's
nothing in it for you. So why open the source? That's not my experience
though. I have one open source project i worked for 2 years on
(freeimage.sourceforge.net) that's now being developed without much of my
input. And the developers do a pretty fine job so far.

Floris

In article <bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Roy Klein wrote:
>> Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
>> so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
>> available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
>> completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.
>
>At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to
>"Intelectual Property". I never finished it though. But the gist is
>similar to what you are saying. Without input from culture, previous
>works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at
>all. In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what
>goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever. So actually since you
>contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you claim
>ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that
>/gave/ you that idea?

You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of
society. The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you
have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own
expressions of many ideas secret too). After all, the ideas you took
from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed
them!

In fact, the result of expressing these ideas is visible too - people
can see the finished program.

>In reality, the idea of intelectual "property" is a misnomer created by
>the people who want to engrain into society as a whole the conclusion
>that they don't have a true ethical right to these ideas/"properties".

On the contrary, IP is the most important kind of property, and not much
different from any other kind. Your ownership of a house or car
effectively just means that society grants its exclusive use to you - if
squatters or joyriders can use them anytime, you have no effective
ownership. Of course this is deeply ingrained in our biology, too,
although it is ownly in modern complex societies that our primal
instincts become applicable to IP.

As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate
patents and copyrights. Only patents protect ideas, the protection time
is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit
needs improvement, I agree). Copyrights protect only the expression of
ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long
copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see. You can't use
Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any
time you want. Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an
expression of that idea.

Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>>Using what knowledge? I assume you mean to say you created these
>>working solutions in a vaccuum? What are you building, stone wheels?
>
>
> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

Well even so, he probbably used over 3000 years of advances in math,
which I highly doubt he managed to create wholely on his own :P He
probably wrote it down on his paper invention using the pens that he
invented and manufactured using a language he created for his own
benefit. Of course he also invented all the crap the led him to the
idea of binary logic because we all know society had no part to play :P

--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Allen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my
> first)! Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder
> on it, it feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
>
> I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net. While I'm quite
> certain that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm
> hesitant to open source my engine or even to share it online. It
> feels too much like just throwing away all my hard work.

Congratulations, you've discovered one of the pitfalls of Not Invented Here.
Yep, you can definitely waste a lot of your time and money on technology
that, in hindsight, turns out to be utterly pointless. The thing to do next
is to consider what parts of your business model are right, and what parts
are wrong. You have to let go of what you've done wrong and move on.

For instance, I just spent most of last year overengineering my 3D planetary
rendering code for Ocean Mars. I've now got some kewl spherical hexified
icosahedron planet code, and there's no way in hell I'm ever turning that IP
over to anyone. It only represents, um, the complete and utter destruction
of my personal finances. It was built very solid, I'll just pick up the
project again at some point in the future when I'm ready.

On the other hand, I went through lotsa gruntwork bullshit to get to that
point. A lot of generic 3D engine stuff that is of *no* proprietary value
at all. I've now realized how stupid it is to do all of my own 3D gruntwork
from scratch. I won't anymore. Putting ego aside, and eschewing perfection
for nominal notions of quality, I've cast my lot with The Nebula Device
crowd.
http://nebuladevice.sourceforge.net/...Nebula/WebHome
Gruntwork is where open source is going to fit into my business model. If
it's gruntwork, we can share it, get it over with, ease our mutual pain and
suffering. Really, how many people like dealing with Microsoft technologies
anyways? Let's wrap 'em all up so we don't have to !#@!!# deal with 'em.

If it's a competitive advantage, it stays closed. I ain't sharin' nuthin
with nobody! I'll worry about sharing stuff like that when I'm out of my
prolific debt. When ahm rolling in megabucks and y'all eatin' mah planetary
debris, bhwwaahahahaahah!!!

Time for your self-assessment. How much of your engine is novel technology
that gives you a competitive advantage? Keep that stuff, keep it
proprietary. How much is crap that any old schmoe could have done, has been
doing, is doing over and over again? Throw away your Not Invented Here
crap, abandon your "I've gotta do everything myself" ego, and move on. The
farther and farther you get into true indie game development, the more you
will realize there is no other way. You *CANNOT* build everything, you
*SHOULD NOT* build everything. There simply aren't enough hours in a year.

> At the same
> time though, it's tempting to see how much improvement could be done
> to my engine with a lot more people (and with some real skills ;-)
> working on it.

That's your ego talking. Are you some kind of godsend of a project manager?
If not, don't sign up for the headaches. Don't waste your energy. You are
better off just scrapping what's not worth anything, taking a deep breath,
and starting again on some real workable goals. That could mean, for
instance, contributing to someone else's project that's well under way,
rather than trying to get overweening control or limelight credit.
Limelight credit has no commercial value anyways. All that matters is if
you can convince some suit to pay you $100/hr for your technical expertise.
You do that by a combination of skill and charm, not your exact marquee on
some project. And I do believe your charm is the more important factor
here.

A word on morale: a failure of this magnitude can knock you out of
commission for several months. That certainly happened to me. But you will
get over it. I'd say I'm only getting over it and moving on about now. My
tailspin lasted 4 months. Big doubts about whether, after 11 years, I was
even in the right field. But I got over it, because I love game design, and
there are games I must make.

Realize also that even if you keep no code at all, your effort was not in
vain. You are now a smarter project architect. You are not likely to make
exactly the same mistakes next time. Of course, that means you will make
new ones. :-) Keep trying to get done what you want done, and eventually
you will figure out the way. Part of that way is figuring out when to work
with other people, and when to ignore them.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Jefferson and I share the same mind when it comes to copyrights and
patents.

Many argue weather Open Sores facilitates competition, but given the way
patents are being abused now (Yes, Virgina, you can patent IDEAS!) Open
Sores certainly does facilitate technological growth.

Open Sores vs Closed Source? I am a firm believer the originator of any
work should decide what is done with it. If my employer pays me to write
software for them, then you bet your ass it is they who decide what shall
be done with it. By the same token, if Allen writes a program it is only
fitting HE decides what is done with it.

Publishing the source code implies a lot of things. I used to assume
people understood 1) the word `imply', 2) those things. Publishing the
source means the originator has lost a monopoly of it's use. Since I
can't do anything correct until I've done it wrong a few times I kinda
welcome the public critique that comes with Open Sores development. Since
I also hate casting pearls before swine I don't like arming morons with
Secrets of The Universe. I'm obviously torn between the two models.

I think this all comes down to what the originator would like. If my
business model depends on service contracts for support of my product I
would probably welcome and benefit from an Open Sores initiative. By the
same token, if my business model depends on selling shrink-wrapped widgets
I might find my niche in copyrighting the binaries only, sealing the
source code from public eyes.

Allen: go ahead and open up the project. Someone might help you out with
the rough edges you mentioned, and only another programmer can appreciate
the beauty and elagence in the poetry wrote, that merely by coincidence
only happens to instruct an x86.

I hope this helps, and I hope it doesn't start any flame wars.
</RANT>

Interesting and related aside:
Archemedes's `The Method' was recently uncovered in a palimpset. Since
the US Patent Office now accepts algorithms could the Heirs of Archemedes
patent integral calculus (he was doing it before N&L)? Could the Heirs of
Archemedes claim a patent on programming (I define `programming' as
`solving a puzzle', not `typing')? Are these notions patently offensive?
This obviously points to serious flaws in the current US patent
procedures, which may not be entirely incidental to objections many
altruists have with the concept of `Intellectual Property'.
Careful: I said `altruist', not `socialist'; This is not flame-bait.

Floris van den Berg wrote:
> "Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
> news:bn5dum$s6u$2@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
>> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
>> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Using what knowledge? I assume you mean to say you created these
>>> working solutions in a vaccuum? What are you building, stone
>>> wheels?
>>
>> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)
>
> I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and
> money to write a program, you open the source, and instead of people
> inputting new ideas and improving the program they just take your
> code and use it, there's nothing in it for you.

More to the point, if you are too generous with your R&D, corporations
*will* rip you off, *will* productize your R&D, *will not* compensate you
one penny for it. Patent Law is for protecting the small inventor from
greedy corporations like Microsoft.

Personally I think if you're going to patent something in software, it
better jolly well be worthy of patenting. I am opposed to frivolous
software patents, which is to say, most of them. I am opposed to legal
prospecting in general. But there are people and companies who legitimately
need the protections of patent law.

Patents are an incentive to progress. Without patents, few people would
have the economic incentive to create new processes. I've rarely met an
anti-patent person who was (1) self-funded, (2) capable of producing
anything worthy of a patent.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>>Roy Klein wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
>>>so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
>>>available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
>>>completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.
>>
>>At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to
>>"Intelectual Property". I never finished it though. But the gist is
>>similar to what you are saying. Without input from culture, previous
>>works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at
>>all. In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what
>>goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever. So actually since you
>>contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you claim
>>ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that
>>/gave/ you that idea?
>
>
> You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of
> society. The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you
> have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own
> expressions of many ideas secret too). After all, the ideas you took
> from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed
> them!

What is society getting out of the deal? You take what society gave
you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back. Nothing
has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.
>
> In fact, the result of expressing these ideas is visible too - people
> can see the finished program.

But society has to purchase the right to view it. So long as there is a
fair limit amount that must be paid, in the way of time, then this is
fair and necissary in our society because we are trade based. In some
utopian society even this would be unreasonable.

You also bring up an interesting point that the ideas I don't express
are similar to the ones I do but keep secret. Consider what happens at
that point, society creates it again in someone else. So long as I
never expressed the idea, and didn't claim ownership of it, this other
person is legally free to do so. Consider the invention of Calculus,
which took place in two seperate people at the same time. Also consider
the telephone; it is only by time alone that we consider Bell the
inventor of the telephone because he got to the patent office first.

What I mean to say is that by not expressing an idea I have I am leaving
the door open for it to be recreated. In our current situation, should
I lay claim to that idea then society is beholden to me for an
undertermined amount of time, possibly as long as there is a corperation
that can continue claiming it, to gain access to that idea. There is
something inherently broken there.
>
>
>>In reality, the idea of intelectual "property" is a misnomer created by
>>the people who want to engrain into society as a whole the conclusion
>>that they don't have a true ethical right to these ideas/"properties".
>
>
> On the contrary, IP is the most important kind of property, and not much
> different from any other kind. Your ownership of a house or car
> effectively just means that society grants its exclusive use to you - if
> squatters or joyriders can use them anytime, you have no effective
> ownership. Of course this is deeply ingrained in our biology, too,
> although it is ownly in modern complex societies that our primal
> instincts become applicable to IP.
>
> As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate
> patents and copyrights. Only patents protect ideas, the protection time
> is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit
> needs improvement, I agree).

Patents are definately the worst of the two. Patents actually kill. If
it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor
countries trying to hamper AIDS. This is not acceptable.

Copyrights protect only the expression of
> ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long
> copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see. You can't use
> Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any
> time you want. Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an
> expression of that idea.

Actually copyright closes a lot of doors on the advancement of many
ideas. For instance, I don't believe you could legally distribute a
text book you wrote based on the MIX computer without Knuth's
permission. This would be a derivative work and I don't think fair use
would help you. Of course Knuth is very open to this and in fact has
requested that a book on OS's be developed using the MMIX.

If we go into the realm of fictional creations you run into all sorts of
problems. You are not going to be able to write a book that takes place
in the Star Wars universe and expect any amount of civility from
Lucasfilms. In fact they have killed several fan works that could have
been incredibly interesting.

What I am seing, and what I have a problem with, is that society
contributes a great deal to these ideas and the only thing they get back
is to be forever indebited to the person who the idea happens to take
hold in, the perpetual right to pay for access to something that it was
99% responsible for creating. This is especially concerning when you
realize that much of our modern culture is based on things on TV, the
movies, and the radio. Much of culture is its music and other forms of
entertainment and artistic expression. Basically our culture is "owned"
by a few corperations and they are trying very hard to make it
impossible to break this hold, in my opinion they don't own these things
- or at least don't have the right to and don't have the right to.

--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
>> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Using what knowledge? I assume you mean to say you created these
>>> working solutions in a vaccuum? What are you building, stone
>>> wheels?
>>
>>
>> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)
>
> Well even so, he probbably used over 3000 years of advances in math,
> which I highly doubt he managed to create wholely on his own :P He
> probably wrote it down on his paper invention using the pens that he
> invented and manufactured using a language he created for his own
> benefit. Of course he also invented all the crap the led him to the
> idea of binary logic because we all know society had no part to play
> :P

How on Earth did I become a strawman for someone's pathetic concerns about
binary logic? If there was ever a patent on binary logic, it expired a long
time ago. Patents aren't forever, they are a delay. You get the benefit of
the societal delay because you risked the $$$$$$$ for the societal speedup.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.