Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Butler
Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 05:11 pm


"David Golden" <david.golden@oceanfree.net> wrote in message
news:xoUYe.16026$R5.704@news.indigo.ie...
> David Golden wrote:

>
> > The whole purpose of granting you temporary monopolies is
> > the theory that the UNfair competition will encourage you to field
> > a team making excretions that those trading the excretions for the
> > prizes you desire, desire.
> >
>
> Gah, that's unclear or just wrong - what I should say is:
>
> "... encourage you to field a team making new excretions desirable
> by those supplying prizes (and by those seeking to produce new
> excretions desirable to prize-suppliers, as new excretion patterns are
> developments of old ones)"
>
> (And team-owners and prize suppliers are not mutually exclusive at all,
> and one must also consider what's "fair" for prize-suppliers.)
>
> Of course, the whole analogy breaks down rather quickly, because
> playing fields are not much like trade markets.
>
> Consider a race across an obstacle course - the leader might stumble
> into more traps, but that's a price of being the leader, you might have
> to work harder than followers.  Doesn't mean the followers owe the
> leader anything, it was a free choice the leader made to do the extra
> work in order to maintain the lead over the followers.

Oh, for fuc'sake, you've been pushing a senario all along that is analogous
to the other racers joining the race _after_ it has been won by the only
racer that had the energy, guts and determination to complete it. The the
later joiners jumping on the back of the winner so as to collect a share of
the prize.  The reason: the information that is 'wining' is not owned by the
first winner but is in fact fully transferrable to anyone that wants to take
it.

>

.