Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 11:21 am In article , willem@stack.nl says... > Gerry wrote: > ) In article , willem@stack.nl > ) says... > ) > )> Anyway, it comes to a tradeoff between better-for-the-vendor and > )> better-for-the-buyer. So yes, I ignore the effect on the vendor > )> when arguing what's best for the buyer. > ) > ) Then your argument is meaningless because you don't close the loop. It > ) applies only to a single interaction in a vacuum, not to a real world > ) situation of many interacting vendors and customers. > > In a real world situation, each vendor and customer will act in his own > interest, so a buyer is not going to care about the interests of the > vendors. He just wants to make the best choice for himself. My argument > applies to this. > > The position is not symmetrical, however, because buyers get to choose > which vendor they buy from, but vendors have to entice buyers into buying > their product. So it is in the interest of the vendor to do care about the > interests of his buyers, but not the other way around. It is in the interest of the vendor to care about the interests of the vendor. Just as for the buyer, any benefits from catering to the interests of the other party are indirect, though it is true that they are more significant for the vendor than the buyer. On the other hand, the vendor typically has much more at stake regarding his own interests too, which may well cancel out that point. Your original argument was simply 'it is better', without specifying who it is supposedly better for. But yes, by your standards it's better for the buyer if the vendor is a fool who gives his product away even though it harms him. So long as the vendor or another fool like him is still in business, of course. If that's no longer the case, the buyer loses too. - Gerry Quinn .