[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Christian Hufgard]

Pasi Palmulehto wrote:
>> >> And the could be legally hacked.
>> > I don't really know would that make any difference compared to this
>> day.
>> Well... If you do something illegal, you can be punished for doing so.
>
> True, though it's almost impossible to cache ones.

The BSA believes in bounties... And they seem to be pretty successfull. :)


>> > Maybe closed source could have that same 5 years commercial
>> protection,
>> > it just wouldn't continue with 20 years of compensation protection
>> > without source codes. And not just software, also music, movies and
>> > other information that isn't put on databank. What are pros and cons
>> and
>> > are there really a lot of systems for who opening the source code is
>> not
>> > acceptable?
>>
>> I am working as a software developer and my company will not release any
>> sourcecode as open source. Basically, because there are a lot of other
>> companies that are willing to serve the same customer. And if the had
>> our
>> source code, that would be much easier.
>
> This is a good point. I don't see a problem if closed source software
> and every other information not in the databank would have the basic 5
> years commercial protection...they just simply wouldn't get the extra
> compensation protection. This also is right on the same line with most
> (all?) pirate parties goals.

That's exactly the model I prefere. The more freedoms you grant, the more
protection you receive.


Christian