Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Mon Sep 05 2005 01:24 pm

In article <pH1Se.5628$R5.949@news.indigo.ie>, 
david.golden@oceanfree.net says...
> 
> > That is the truth behind communism, and behind the 
> > 'tragedy of the commons'. 
> 
> Historical aside: the tragedy of the commons story supposes there is no
> agreed mechanism to decide on proper use of the commons and that it's a
> free-for-all. Real commons were considered joint, common, property, not
> "not property" and the joint owners had agreed mechanisms for making
> decisions about them.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Exactly.  When ownership was destroyed, the commons were soon after 
destroyed too.  You want to do the same with IP.

> But the tragedy of the commons, even when applicable, applies to scarce
> resources. It has not been demonstrated applicable to actual
> information - information is naturally non-scarce, you can't "use it
> up", consuming it like a finite field of grass.  If I have a copy of
> some information, and you make a copy, perceived by some humans to be
> the "same" information, I still have my copy.

The fact is that the value of information is bound up in how it is 
distributed.  You want to destroy it. When the sale value of 
information is at most that of its value to a single user (which is 
what you want), the earning power of information creators will be 
vastly reduced.

> Now, there is (some) scarcity in the market for information production
> and distribution services, but a "tragedy of the commons" may be
> avoided there simply by authors continuing to be able to charge for
> a load of stuff already discussed in software as service. I have pointed
> out that when copyright law is done away with, actual producers of
> novel information patterns, including programmers who are any good at
> it, will still be able to make a good living.  

"Pointed out"?  I've seen nothing but a parade of half-baked 
assertions!  You want to destroy most of the value of information - its 
creators will be damaged accordingly.
 
> > The slogan "free as in speech, not free as in beer", so 
> > appealing to morons, 
> 
> Well I think the moronic part comes from the oversimplification
> in the above variant.
> 
> "free as in free[libre] speech, not free as in free[gratis] beer."
> would be a bit clearer, even without the libre/gratis bits
> correcting the deficiencies of the english language.

The additions make no difference.  'Free speech' means that I am 
allowed to state my opinions.  When I do, it is protected by copyright.  
You, however, are entitled to state similar opinions in your own words.  
That is free speech.  What you cannot do is plagiarise my speech.  
Copyright law, i.e. IP, does not interfere in any way with free speech, 
and in fact the two work perfectly hand in hand.

By contrast, the 'information freedom' you propose is reminiscent of 
nothing so much as a mob of looters grabbing crates of beer from a 
wrecked shop.

- Gerry Quinn

.