Dave Winer on releasing MORE's source. (SOURCE:Scripting News)-OK, this makes sense now. I agree the system wouldn't work. Thanks Dave!

Maybe this simplified story will shed some light on the realities of software development. Had we been forced to release the source, I don't think we could have sold our investors on taking a chance on us, or realized the great return we got from the Symantec deal, and gone on to develop more software. The system you describe just wouldn't work, you wouldn't get any of it. Basically, I would love it if the source for MORE were released. I think it would be a humantarian contribution of the first order, but it's not mine to make.
[Roland Tanglao's Weblog]

» Okay I wasn't going to jump in on this but I think Dave may have misunderstood Lessig's proposal.  I think 10 year copyright expiry could work.

This is what I understand from Larry Lessig's proposal about copyright expiry after 10 years:

The source code would be de-escrowed after 10 years.  But only the source code whose copyright has expired.  By publishing a new version (e.g. Version 2) of the software you establish a new copyright checkpoint.  Your version 2 doesn't get de-escrowed for 10 more years after it is released.

So here are my reasons:

1. I do not think that the possession of a 10 year old version of the software is going to put you in a competitve position against the holder of the latest & greatest source code.  It would be like trying to market Windows 3.0 against Windows XP.
2. If investors had the choice between a company who kept the source code proprietary forever and one who had to publish after 10 years then I agree, they would pick the former.  But this will be a level playing field.  Everyone will have to publish their source code after 10 years.  It won't be an issue.

Of course maybe I've misunderstood Lessig..?