Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: "Wayne Niddery [TeamB]" <wniddery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:28:08 -0400
Captain Jake wrote:
>>
> You are confusing politics and economics.
No, I'm *assuming* the politics - free choice in the work we do - and
dealing with the economics within that.
> I'm not interested in
> denying anybody their right to do what they want with their time. In
> fact, I'm not addressing rights at all. I'm pointing out that "free"
> software is not free, it does come at a cost. The time used to
> produce FOSS is time that is not available for those individuals to
> use for something else.
Which means you are divorcing theory from reality - which is exactly the
same error as the "perfect competition" theory - an attempt to get the
results of a system that *cannot* exist in reality. You cannot count as a
loss something that does not exist - the time that people *theoretically
could* give to the most productive uses (as though the were drone bees) but
choose not to in reality. One of the most widely accepted measures of a
rising standard of living (which has to be a result of more extensive and
efficient allocation of resources) is precisely the amount of leisure time
we are able to take for ourselves. It cannot be counted both ways - a
measure of both progress *and* inefficiency.
> Furthermore, the impact of free software on
> long-term innovation and salaries IS a negative externality that
> makes this my business, your business, and the business of everyone
> interested in making a living from writing software. That externality
> is a cost that demonstrates that resources are NOT being optimally
> allocated.
Again only assuming the above impractical theory. If such people were not
creating FOSS, they would be doing something else, in virtually all cases,
that was also not contributing to the economy in a productive way - so again
there is nothing that can be considered a loss here. The difference is that,
in writing such software, they are *in fact being productive*. That they
choose not to be paid in monetary form is irrelevant to whether their work
has *value* to others. Another measure of progress is in the lowering of
costs of production - this is considered a good thing in all normal cases,
but yet you claim a cost of $0 for some component of production magically
becomes bad and makes things more *inefficient* - that is a contradiction
that cannot stand in reality.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." - John Adams
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- References:
- Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Eyal
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Captain Jake
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Eyal
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Captain Jake
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Eyal
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Captain Jake
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
- Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- From: Captain Jake
- Open Source vs. Commercial
- Prev by Date: Re: The perfect formula for users to help D10(D2006?) succeed
- Next by Date: Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- Previous by thread: Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- Next by thread: Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|