Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic. And the lameness filter, like said dickless wonder, can bite me.
Hmm... So if it hadn't been for the product liability lawsuits again car manufacturers, I could have saved a couple a couple hundred on a car, at the price of being roasted alive when my gas tank explodes.
In my humble opinion, the only reason all the security holes are being found in Microsoft's software, is by virtue of the fact that it is, like it or not, running the majority of the world's computers, something like 95%.
Bullshit. While it's a factor, to call it the only reason makes me think you've been listening to too many MS astroturfurs. There are numerous other factors in this, including: 1. Stupid defaults. 2. A system designed to be administered by chimpanzees probably will be. 3. Security as a low priority in OS and app design. 4. Treating security fixes as low-priority issues until they make front page news.
That's 4 other factors right there. Don't tell me popularity is the only reason.
Hence, the prior poster was correct and you can say that a sweatshop is vounteer labour.
OK, that's a concept I've seen in other places recently, and I want to put it to rest.
"Voluntary" implies a choice. The choice for most or all sweatshop workers is to work in a sweatshop or starve. I don't consider it a choice when the alternative is starvation. If your going to claim that it IS a choice, then you're also going to have to claim a rape victim with a gun to their head had a choice, so the rapist should be let off. Just like the claim that sweatshops are voluntary attempts to remove responsibility from the sweatshop owner.
In addition, like I said in my response to ergo98, sweatshops also usually have conditions which are unsafe due to the negligence of the owner. Anyone who'd care to defend THAT?
Bottom line: sweatshops are evil, and Free software creation doesn't even vaguely resemble a sweatshop. To claim that Free software is a sweatshop is still incredibly offensive, and ergo98 still owes an apology.
Sweatshops are volunteer labor, in a sense. The idea is that the contributors are not being compensated for the worth of their input,
Sorry, no. Unless you're going to claim eating is voluntary, sweatshops don't qualify as volunteer labor. "Volunteer" means a hell of a lot more than not being paid for your work. Furthermore, for manufacturing facility to be defined as a sweatshop, it generally requires negligence toward worker safety as well. Where's that present in Free software?
If IBM used the local church knitting circle to make IBM banners for the trade show would that be charity and volunteerism?
Would you be accusing IBM of operating sweatshops? That's also not a valid comparison, since the Free software programmer gets full use of whatever modifications he made to the program. He recieved full value for his labor; he's just providing the fruits of that labor to others at no monetary cost as well. And it's not just IBM who benefits from that labor, it's anyone who has a need for that software. Finally, if the church knitting circle decided on their own with no pushing from IBM to produce those banners, I don't see how it could be called anything but volunteerism or charity.
My point was that marginal cost with software (or ANY IP work) is completely irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant to nvidia, or any other IP creation:
Yah, but it's irrelevant because it's near-zero, which is Bruce's point. If it weren't so low, Free software wouldn't be viable.
The problem with your point is that you're applying this principle to products which *are* physical and *don't* have those near-zero marginal costs. A chip isn't a product until it can be held in the hand. nVidia may be entirely patent based, but their patents are useless without billions of dollars in fabrication equipment, and a non-insignificant marginal cost on each chip. That isn't true of software. This is why you can't treat them the same way.
If my company were writing an application based on components written by someone else, we'd be happy to give fair payment to the developers in return for our use of those components.
Then put your money where your mouth is and do so. There's no reason the original developers couldn't license the code to you under conditions that wouldn't require you to release the source to your derivative works. The GPL doesn't bind the copyright owner, as he doesn't require a license to distribute.
If he doesn't want to, that's his choice. But when someone gives you the product of hours of their labor at no monetary cost, whining about the conditions under which it's given to you is incredibly offensive. You don't want it under the conditions, don't accept it. Do without, or make a counteroffer to the original developer. But don't whine about it.
What makes you think you have a right to use someone else's code in your products?
Does the same rule apply to any form of IP? (patents, copyrights, etc.). It would be hypocrisy if it didn't. This would basically destroy the chip making (i.e. AMD, which is fabless), or any other advanced engineering, firm immediately.
(I'm assuming you copied the wrong paragraph and were continuing the "exceptional market" discussion that started your reply.)
AMD has multiple fabs. It's Rambus that was fabless, and I, for one, have no problem with their going under.
You're ignoring the fact that hardware has much more normal supply dynamics than software. Marginal costs per chip are much larger than pressing CDs or net distribution, both in absolute terms and percentagewise. It's these minimal marginal costs that make free software possible. Given that the supply dynamic for software is completely different from hardware and other physical goods, expecting the software market to behave the same as the market for physical goods is really absurd.
Finally, what rule are you referring to that would apply to these goods?
In your own article you commented that Linux, if it was developed with paid labour (instead of sweatshop freebies), would cost $1.9 billion, so stating that there is not a cost... per copy distributed is greatly simplifying...
1. Volunteer labor is not sweatshop labor, and comparing the two is nothing but slander to all the people who have worked on free software. You owe an apology to a hell of a lot of people.
2. Huh? The fact that Linux would have required a couple billion in fixed costs means that software has significant marginal costs? Why? Software does have minimal marginal costs compared to the majority of goods; this is fact and can't be denied. Large or small, fixed costs don't affect marginal costs, and have nothing to do with Bruce's point.
(is there a cost if I sneak into a movie theater in a half-full audience? If you see it in a selfish, individual way then no, but if you see it as a whole then of course there is: What if everyone snuck in?)
That's true. However, it doesn't relate in any way to the sentence you're responding to. Bruce is not talking about the cost to society; he never mentioned it. He is referring to the marginal cost, the cost to produce and distribute one item of product. That cost, for software, is near-zero. That is what is why Bruce believes that software markets cannot be treated the same as hardware markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Whee.......
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeee........
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Ho hum.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheee......
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeeee.....
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheee........
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeee......
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheee....
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Ho, hum, hmmmm.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Amazing, capitalizing one letter's enough to defeat the lameness filter.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as overrated.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
Anyone who mentions The Bell Curve seriously has got to be a troll.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
AC trolls...
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
And the lameness filter, like the dickless wonder, sucks donkey balls and enjoys it.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
Move along, nothing to see. Unless you're the dickless wonder.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic. And the lameness filter, like said dickless wonder, can bite me.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old posts offtopic.
Hmm... So if it hadn't been for the product liability lawsuits again car manufacturers, I could have saved a couple a couple hundred on a car, at the price of being roasted alive when my gas tank explodes.
Damn those lawyer bastards!
In my humble opinion, the only reason all the security holes are being found in Microsoft's software, is by virtue of the fact that it is, like it or not, running the majority of the world's computers, something like 95%.
Bullshit. While it's a factor, to call it the only reason makes me think you've been listening to too many MS astroturfurs. There are numerous other factors in this, including:
1. Stupid defaults.
2. A system designed to be administered by chimpanzees probably will be.
3. Security as a low priority in OS and app design.
4. Treating security fixes as low-priority issues until they make front page news.
That's 4 other factors right there. Don't tell me popularity is the only reason.
Hence, the prior poster was correct and you can say that a sweatshop is vounteer labour.
OK, that's a concept I've seen in other places recently, and I want to put it to rest.
"Voluntary" implies a choice. The choice for most or all sweatshop workers is to work in a sweatshop or starve. I don't consider it a choice when the alternative is starvation. If your going to claim that it IS a choice, then you're also going to have to claim a rape victim with a gun to their head had a choice, so the rapist should be let off. Just like the claim that sweatshops are voluntary attempts to remove responsibility from the sweatshop owner.
In addition, like I said in my response to ergo98, sweatshops also usually have conditions which are unsafe due to the negligence of the owner. Anyone who'd care to defend THAT?
Bottom line: sweatshops are evil, and Free software creation doesn't even vaguely resemble a sweatshop. To claim that Free software is a sweatshop is still incredibly offensive, and ergo98 still owes an apology.
Sweatshops are volunteer labor, in a sense. The idea is that the contributors are not being compensated for the worth of their input,
Sorry, no. Unless you're going to claim eating is voluntary, sweatshops don't qualify as volunteer labor. "Volunteer" means a hell of a lot more than not being paid for your work. Furthermore, for manufacturing facility to be defined as a sweatshop, it generally requires negligence toward worker safety as well. Where's that present in Free software?
If IBM used the local church knitting circle to make IBM banners for the trade show would that be charity and volunteerism?
Would you be accusing IBM of operating sweatshops? That's also not a valid comparison, since the Free software programmer gets full use of whatever modifications he made to the program. He recieved full value for his labor; he's just providing the fruits of that labor to others at no monetary cost as well. And it's not just IBM who benefits from that labor, it's anyone who has a need for that software. Finally, if the church knitting circle decided on their own with no pushing from IBM to produce those banners, I don't see how it could be called anything but volunteerism or charity.
My point was that marginal cost with software (or ANY IP work) is completely irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant to nvidia, or any other IP creation:
Yah, but it's irrelevant because it's near-zero, which is Bruce's point. If it weren't so low, Free software wouldn't be viable.
The problem with your point is that you're applying this principle to products which *are* physical and *don't* have those near-zero marginal costs. A chip isn't a product until it can be held in the hand. nVidia may be entirely patent based, but their patents are useless without billions of dollars in fabrication equipment, and a non-insignificant marginal cost on each chip. That isn't true of software. This is why you can't treat them the same way.
If my company were writing an application based on components written by someone else, we'd be happy to give fair payment to the developers in return for our use of those components.
Then put your money where your mouth is and do so. There's no reason the original developers couldn't license the code to you under conditions that wouldn't require you to release the source to your derivative works. The GPL doesn't bind the copyright owner, as he doesn't require a license to distribute.
If he doesn't want to, that's his choice. But when someone gives you the product of hours of their labor at no monetary cost, whining about the conditions under which it's given to you is incredibly offensive. You don't want it under the conditions, don't accept it. Do without, or make a counteroffer to the original developer. But don't whine about it.
What makes you think you have a right to use someone else's code in your products?
Does the same rule apply to any form of IP? (patents, copyrights, etc.). It would be hypocrisy if it didn't. This would basically destroy the chip making (i.e. AMD, which is fabless), or any other advanced engineering, firm immediately.
... per copy distributed is greatly simplifying ...
(I'm assuming you copied the wrong paragraph and were continuing the "exceptional market" discussion that started your reply.)
AMD has multiple fabs. It's Rambus that was fabless, and I, for one, have no problem with their going under.
You're ignoring the fact that hardware has much more normal supply dynamics than software. Marginal costs per chip are much larger than pressing CDs or net distribution, both in absolute terms and percentagewise. It's these minimal marginal costs that make free software possible. Given that the supply dynamic for software is completely different from hardware and other physical goods, expecting the software market to behave the same as the market for physical goods is really absurd.
Finally, what rule are you referring to that would apply to these goods?
In your own article you commented that Linux, if it was developed with paid labour (instead of sweatshop freebies), would cost $1.9 billion, so stating that there is not a cost
1. Volunteer labor is not sweatshop labor, and comparing the two is nothing but slander to all the people who have worked on free software. You owe an apology to a hell of a lot of people.
2. Huh? The fact that Linux would have required a couple billion in fixed costs means that software has significant marginal costs? Why? Software does have minimal marginal costs compared to the majority of goods; this is fact and can't be denied. Large or small, fixed costs don't affect marginal costs, and have nothing to do with Bruce's point.
(is there a cost if I sneak into a movie theater in a half-full audience? If you see it in a selfish, individual way then no, but if you see it as a whole then of course there is: What if everyone snuck in?)
That's true. However, it doesn't relate in any way to the sentence you're responding to. Bruce is not talking about the cost to society; he never mentioned it. He is referring to the marginal cost, the cost to produce and distribute one item of product. That cost, for software, is near-zero. That is what is why Bruce believes that software markets cannot be treated the same as hardware markets.