Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Scott Moore <samiam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:50:16 -0700
David Golden wrote:
Copyright and patent monopoly laws represent gross interference in the software market, apart from the civil liberty concerns. Of course, maybe you're not a free-market capitalist, so you might not care - maybe you prefer command capitalism ?!
"markets" are based on ownership, so that is the use of a capitalist term without understanding its meaning, sorry.
A free market in software, in writing new and updating or otherwise
customising old software - gee, stuff programmers do - is the aim for
many FSF-supporting programmers. "Without copyright law the GPL would
be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".
Software in the abstract is nonrivalrous - if I give you a copy of some
software, I still have my copy. If I give you a table, I'm down one
table. So the naturally scarce item in a free software market is
programmer labour, not software. Good programmers will be in demand
for quite some time to come, even when we have abolished copyright and
patent law - if anything we'll be better off, and we won't have so
many parasitic middlemen. Right now, the richest people in software
aren't programmers, they're the middlemen who have been handed distribution monopolies on a plate by the state - would microsoft
have become such an antitrust problem if they weren't handed ready-made
copyright and patent monopolies in the first place? I doubt it.
You have all of those things you desire. You can make software, distribute it, have others modify it, all of that, all of the things you claim to want, that is open source, that is freeware.
However, you then proceed to avocate that the right to produce paid software be removed, by force of law, from others.
No one here has a problem with open source. No one here has a problem with freeware. We all respect the use of the GPL.
However, you aren't avocating that. You are avocating abolishment, by force of law, of my means to make a living.
I have a problem with that. And the law is on my side. You could just be happy and go make your software and distribute that. The fact that me, and what I do is intolerable to you is a problem that exists only in your mind.
-- Samiam is Scott A. Moore
Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185 Pascal compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas
Good does not always win. But good is more patient. .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: David Golden
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- References:
- GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Scott Moore
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: David Golden
- GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Prev by Date: Clean simple HTML (was: How much should I charge for fixed-pric...)
- Next by Date: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Next by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|