Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 01:09 pm In article , david.golden@oceanfree.net says... > 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. But we do, apart from the software communists. It's the same for software as for other things - the only new wrinkle seems to be the attempt to introduce communism by stages, starting with only certain types of property. Someone else might argue that land cannot be owned, because there's only a finite resource, whereas new software can be created by anyone and so should be property. Again, it would be an attempt to introduce communism into a particular sector. > 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 > 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). You were talking about a specific proposal; I answered you on that basis. Even in communist countries, most people didn't starve to death - I don't doubt that some people would even work as programmers under software communism, and the others could redeploy (or, as is more usual under these regimes, be redeployed). > *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. The same old Red fantasy. > 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...) The only sense I can extract from that paragraph is that you want to free the software and pay it, rather than the programmers who have enslaved it! - Gerry Quinn .