Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Scott Moore
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 03:08 pm

David Golden wrote:
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Contrary to your nonsensical argument, free 
>>markets *depend* on the notion of property.
>>
> 
> Free markets for things notionally property do...  If we don't consider
> software to be property in the first place, that's irrelevant.

If you want to consider software to not be property, then that's fine.
With YOUR work, you are free to consider it to be communial.

That's freedom.

> 
> I thought it was reasonably clear I was talking about a software market
> from a programmer's perspective as a service provider: We can offer the
> service of writing new programs or developing existing programs in
> various directions, or even "just" auditing and bugfixing them and
> warranting they're okay (that last one only to paying customers unless

If you want to consider software a service, then you are free to consider
your software a service.

That's freedom.

> you're completely mad...), even in the complete absence of copyright
> law, which we might want to abandon for ethical reasons (like slavery
> was abandoned). 

If you don't like the copyright law, then you are free not to copyright
your work.

That's freedom.

> 
> *Software market as a service market*.  Got it? Good programmers will
> still do okay in such a market (IMHO better) when copyright and patent
> law is abolished.

If you want to consider software a service market, with software that
*you* make, you can do that.

That's freedom.

> 
> If you treat people as property, obviously a free market for such slaves
> might depend for its existence on the ability to treat people as
> property.  If you don't allow treatment of people as property, but do
> treat people's work as valuable, the market for people's labour doesn't
> depend for its existence on the ability to treat people as property
> (but would likely be strongly affected by its presence...)
> 

If you are enslaved by an employer, quit.

That's freedom.

You have all these freedoms you desire. That's not enough for you, you
want to take away others rights and freedoms.

Yes, I realize that you don't recognize my right to sell software.
But you have already been given the way around that, by making your own,
and distrubuting that, using all your freedoms given above.

The fact is, you can have your model of the world, and I can have mine,
and there is no conflict. So why is there a need to eliminate my method
so yours can survive? Does your model live of its own merits, or must
mine be torn down so that yours can work?

.