From: kr@cup.portal.com (Markus XXX Krummenacker)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: 3D modelling softwar
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 03:37:50 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In a recent sci.chem posting on 9/24/92
by edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
one could read the following:

->In article <1992Sep24.175622.9692@cc.ic.ac.uk> rzepa@ic.ac.uk 
->(Henry Rzepa) writes:
->>An interesting issue is whether something that was largely in public
->>domain, and the code for which still contains 80% of that public
->>domain code, can now be copyrighted by one or more individuals.  Their
->>quite reasonable argument is that all profits will be re-invested into
->>further code development, from which we will all benefit in the end.
->>However, prices have a habit of rising. Some of
->>us remember the Gaussian series. Thus G80 was QCPE (free except for
->>handling costs). G86 was as I recollect $300. G92 is now $2000
->>(academic). Lets hope that all those youngsters out there at the start
->>of their careers can still afford all these codes!  


->First is a philosophical argument.  Science has been built on the free
->transfer of ideas and methods.  While the theories DMol uses have been
->published, it does a scientist no good to have wonderful new methods of
->looking at problems if s/he can't afford them.  The quantum chemistry 
->community has grown up around cheap, freely available codes, and the
->field has flourished partly because of it. (IMHO)  

->Second is one of scientific accuracy. One of the reasons Gaussian is so
->well developed and tested is that is was released cheaply, along with the 
->source code.  With a canned, commercial package, you have to accept the 
->results given you, if you want a new feature, you have to wait for the
->company to get around to adding it.  Given that the installed base will
->be smaller the more you charge for the program, serious bugs may go 
->undetected and unfixed for far longer than in a MOPAC or Gaussian.

I fully support these arguments. It is really insane to what proprietary
atmosphere (with the concommitant exorbitant pricing) software has degenerated.
Apart from the argument concerning the hacker ethic, that software was never
meant to be sold but to be given away and shared, the scientific accuracy
argument has real validity. The same argument can easily be extended to
software reliability in general. It would be much more reasonable to generate
reusable software components which are public domain or are really cheap
and which could be used over and over again for many different projects.
Why the hell is software-debugging such a pain ? Because all the components
for a project (the more secretive and proprietary, the more this argument
holds) are programmed from scratch (to not infringe existing software
patents or to have something new to patent yourself), so the wheels are
constantly being reinvented, opening up lots of opportunities for introduction
of plenty of bugs. Reusable software components would have exposure to such
a large audience and community of users, that even hidden bugs would be
uncovered fairly rapidly and so by virtue of being used so thoroughly
and extensively, software components which have been around for some time
would become very well debugged, characterized, reliable, and rugged
building-blocks.
All of humanity would benefit from such a process.
I agree that an author of a piece of software is allowed to receive some
reward for the creative effort. Not all people seem to be completely
comfortable with giving their software to the public domain and to just earn
credit in form of abstract recognition and fame. For these
people, there still is the option of offering it as Shareware, a system
in which distribution and copying of software are completely free, but
if a user likes it and uses it a lot, the user is encouraged to pay the author
whatever it is worth to her/him. Fairness only dictates such a behaviour. If one
starts treating human beings in a gentlemanly fashion, they actually might
start behaving like gentlemen instead of like blood-thursty savages.
We really would have the possibility of transforming our planet into a really
nice place, if we only wanted to...

There is one organization, The League for Programming Freedom, which is
devoted to change at least the very worst habit in softbiz, namely
software patents and wide-ranging user-interface copyright claims.
To find out more about the LPF, feel free to contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu



->Comments?  (Note, if anyone wants a public domain DF code, I'll be looking
->for a postdoc in a little while.....)
->-- 
->Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
->                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}

I wish you good luck in finding a sponsor and hope it will be a successful
project. And I wish to encourage any and all thinking brains out there
to contribute with their creative energies to a common pool of high quality
software without the legalese and restrictions that have poisoned todays
climate.

Markus


------- End - of - Message -----------------------
(responsibility for my personal opinions is mine)

Richard Stallman : "The more society becomes
        information instead of material objects,
        this question of whether
        a person can copy things
        will make the difference between

        a world of universal prosperity
     or a world of constant rat race."
__________________________________________________
kr@cup.portal.com            IIIII  M   M  M   M
Markus Krummenacker            I    MM MM  MM MM
(working for                   I    M M M  M M M
 The Institute for             I    M   M  M   M
 Molecular Manufacturing)      I    M   M  M   M
                             IIIII  M   M  M   M