Well I think a large factor in altruism is whether or not you are getting your needs met.
I know that I am generous when things are going well and stingy when they are not.
I also know that I do see when my actions can create a larger good and I usually go for it.
That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem.
If someone else figures out the same thing on their own and does the same do you feel that it's right that they must pay you?
Not legally correct but right?
I just paid cash money for a closed source program because it had utility for me. There was no open source project anywhere near mature enough so I ponied up.
I realize that things get weird when you are dealing with ideas in capital intensive industries. You can't just go out and start a chip fab to utilize your branch prediction patent.
However "Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?" Because it's doing nothing right now and someone else who has those interests will rediscover it.
So what then? I don't know but things are at a strange choke point. Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes.
I may be full of shit but I design and build products and make a living and I do not patent or design copyright anything formally. My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless and your only true capital is your reputation and your ability to meet demand.
Put another way. I also own a coffee shop. I can't patent that and if another operator moves in next door there is no mechanism in existence that allows me to prevent them or get licensing fees. If I were to build a hotel or gas station, same deal. Anyone could set up shop across the street. If I make mint coffee, put a mint on the pillow or sell green gas there is no protection available.
> That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem.
There is significant social good in getting me to disclose said method.
> My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless
I'm not concerned about thieves. I'm concerned about disclosure - I want more of it because the more disclosure there is, the faster things advance. I'm willing to pay "but I rediscovered it independently" for more disclosure. (That said, I think that such cases are overstated and come about mainly because someone was trying to get there first, for the patent, and missed.)
> Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes.
Patents are not even close to being at the crux of our economic problems.
> So why are software and ideas any different?
I didn't say that software was different, I said that new ideas were different than old ones. I want to encourage folks to disclose new ideas.
We still don't know how GoreTex is made.
Feel free to caricture my position as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Actually I agree that we need more disclosure.
I just cannot conceive of any way that locking up knowledge is a healthy thing for a culture or society.
I believe the widespread adoption of the internet has helped compress the lag time between the early adopters and the general population from about 10 years to 5 or less.
If everyone was actually living in the present things would be better.
I know that I am generous when things are going well and stingy when they are not.
I also know that I do see when my actions can create a larger good and I usually go for it.
That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem.
If someone else figures out the same thing on their own and does the same do you feel that it's right that they must pay you?
Not legally correct but right?
I just paid cash money for a closed source program because it had utility for me. There was no open source project anywhere near mature enough so I ponied up.
I realize that things get weird when you are dealing with ideas in capital intensive industries. You can't just go out and start a chip fab to utilize your branch prediction patent.
However "Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?" Because it's doing nothing right now and someone else who has those interests will rediscover it.
So what then? I don't know but things are at a strange choke point. Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes.
I may be full of shit but I design and build products and make a living and I do not patent or design copyright anything formally. My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless and your only true capital is your reputation and your ability to meet demand.
Put another way. I also own a coffee shop. I can't patent that and if another operator moves in next door there is no mechanism in existence that allows me to prevent them or get licensing fees. If I were to build a hotel or gas station, same deal. Anyone could set up shop across the street. If I make mint coffee, put a mint on the pillow or sell green gas there is no protection available.
So why are software and ideas any different?