Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Mon Aug 29 2005 12:02 pm In article , david.golden@oceanfree.net says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > "Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you > > steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is > > something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid? > > > Bill Gates is no doubt capable of mendacity (and asserts that people > "steal" software, presupposing it's valid to consider it stolen): Do you doubt his claim that most users did not purchase a licence? I don;t see where the accusations of mendacity come in. As for 'steal' he also used the word 'share' as preferred by the IP pirates. And he asks the question ('is it fair') which you snipped. > People even then WERE paid for _writing_ software, where the real work > is in software. But is it fair people instead get paid, over and again, > for copies of software they've already written, thanks to distribution > monopoly? (rhetorical, obviously you think so) Yes, why not? No more than it's unfair that a farmer should plant a tree once and expect to own the apples every year thereafter. Indeed, Gates paid a programmer to write it. But this was in the expectation that users would not illegally 'share' or whatever you want to call this activity. Fine, you say, Gates misjudged the market, and look, the programmer got paid anyway. But one swallow doesn't make a summer, and you can be sure that that would be unusual in the world you want to create. > So: we have a market with a policy intervention of the creation of an > extra monopoly right above the free state of the market where > programming would be a service. Now, don't confuse socialism > (politics), with communism (economics): someone executing a socialistic > welfare policy of interference in a natural market so that information > pattern creators can earn their conception of a "rightful" amount above > (or merely assumed by them to be above) that which a market without > their interference might yield might well use a new monopoly right as a > tool to do so. That paragraph has no clear meaning to me. I'm not confusing socialism and communism - have I anywhere referred to your policies as 'software socialism'? > Aside: in all this, I note that words like "socialism" and "communism" > are probably less evil sounding to me than to you in the first place > given my non-USA upbringing... You've not spent time in a Gulag either, I take it. But by all means, preach communism from the rooftops if you will, just be honest about what it is you are pushing. - Gerry Quinn .