But communism forces people into the system. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd software. And that is a huge difference.
Allchin specifically narrowed his comments to cover only government funding for GPL software development. That would tend to make software a public resource, depending of course on the amount of funding.
Spending $1 billion on GPL efforts is not burning $1 billion. GDP is a balanced equation: expenditures = income.
Yup and mea culpa. I only dusted off my Macroeconomics textbook after posting.
That doesn't change the main point, that government policy can effect the performance of the rest of the economy and that this is the greatest factor in much government decision-making. I wrote up some thoughts on how releasing government software under BSD might encourage more growth than releasing it under GPL in an earlier reply. I'd be interested to read your opinion on the subject.
Not without finding all the copyright holders and securing their unanimous permission. Given that copyright is intended to protect the author and two subsequent generations, if that problem is not yet unsolvable it will be eventually. If a GPL'd work is held exclusively by the Government, the Government could sell it under a second license, but why not make that second license BSD?
Software doesn't create wealth. Proprietary software is a mechanism for persuading someone else with wealth to give it to you because of it is of value to that person/organization doing the buying.
IP is an asset on the balance sheet. It can be used to generate income.
If software to perform a certain task were available elsewhere for less money or for free, then that person/organization would get it from there, and then still have the $$ to contribute to the economy, mostly likely in some other way.
People generally prefer paying less for something than paying more for it, but they would also prefer getting more for free than getting less for free. GPL gives less profitable rights to licensees than BSD (although releasing the software under both licenses would give more rights than either).
Free software doesn't diminish the amount of wealth in the economy.
Derivative work on GPL software cannot increase a company's assets; derivative work on BSD-licensed software can.
What does Napster or MP3s in general have to do with free software? Napster is about the illegal trading of copyrighted material. It is a dissing of copyright. On the contrary, the GPL relies on copyright to function.
Both Napster and GPL have the effect of denaturing intellectual property. That Napster is a black market doesn't change this fact -- its effect is freely available, freely copyable music. That GPL is a voluntary decision made by each contributor also doesn't alter the fact that it spits in the face of IP.
A world without the state's grant of monopoly rights to creators would operate exactly as the GPL does. GPL is like a sign on a post stating "Trespassing, Please! (But only if you allow me to trespass on your land.)" It's legal, and its legality is consistent with the principles of property rights. But its effect is to create a large commune where land is owned by the commune and for the commune. Inside the commune, private property does not exist. Yet from the outside, the commune is identical to other private property. Do the commune-dwellers oppose or support private property rights? Does the commune's existence promote or harm the institution of property?
If someone can't compete against free software, imho, they don't deserve to be in business. Imagine me trying to argue that FAQ maintainers are cutting into my business selling how-to books. If I didn't provide a better product, why would I deserve any money?
If the government were to invest money creating GPL-licensed software where commercial alternatives existed, it would in effect be subsidizing software publishers' competition. It would be like the government one day decided to give every citizen a government-made car. The market for private cars would collapse, and the government would have erected a state-run monopoly over the automotive industry.
If a business is viable, the business should be able to compete against free, volunteer-based alternatives. No business should have to compete against the government.
I don't see why it's a good thing that you can take a public program developed by the government, make a few changes, make it proprietary, and sell it.
And customers won't either. If the "few changes" cost the company 10% of the original cost of development to build, the only value the company adds is that 10%. If they try to profit as if they'd built the whole thing from scratch, another company (or a free software group) would undercut them, and people wouldn't buy their software.
Both of these have source code available and could be implemented for free. We're buying them to get the service package.
If that software is under GPL, you're really only buying the service package. The (financial) incentive for your vendor to invest in innovations on these products is far less than it would be if the vendor could profit directly from the innovations. Any innovations the vendor pays for will profit the vendor's competitors more than the vendor itself.
I think people would still sell add-ons, but they'd have to sell a modular add-on, or an open source one.
The GPL forbids you from selling add-ons, open source or not, for GPL-licensed software. You must give the add-ons away for free under GPL or not distribute at all.
And it's not like there'd be less of a market for programmers, we'd just be hired to customize things.
Who would hire us and why? My guess is less people would be hired and for less compelling reasons.
If the government does not spend that billion on software, because they get the same for free, it can provide other services or return the money to the tax payer so they may spend the money as they truely wish.
My post was ambiguously worded. I meant that the decision was between spending $1 billion developing code under GPL and spending $1 billion developing code for release under a different license.
I could also blame Microsoft for the slowdown. With everyone having to spend too much money on MS software, since they take away from other investments that might make the economy really grow.
And Microsoft is attacking the GPL now to divert blame. "Look what Bill Gates did to all those software companies," we said. Allchin's response: "Look at this hidden threat to the entire software industry."
The government spending is not going to make or break the economy, unless it is alot. A billion is not that much in the big picture.
$1 billion = approximately 10,000 person-years of software development (assuming $100,000 per developer-year).
Ummm, if it costs money to develop a GPLed app, that money goes to the programmers. They'll spend their wages just like they would otherwise.
All government expenditures on goods and services are counted in expense-side GDP calculations regardless of the actual value of the goods or services produced, just as all taxes are counted in income-side GDP. Who the money goes to depends on how the government pays for the work. A contract job would be profitable to the contractor, for example, regardless of the license under which the resulting source is released.
The licensing is what Allchin addresses. A restrictive, proprietary license would allow the government to sell the software, but most people would say that the Government shouldn't engage in commerce. Releasing under the BSD license would allow the private sector (both foreign and domestic) to sell derived works, which would encourage a competitive market for derived works. Under capitalist ideology, free and competitive markets are most efficient at creating wealth and most effective at furthering productivity-enhancing innovation, both of which lead to increased GDP. Releasing under GPL would effectively forbid such a market from developing.
For a simple example, the Government decides to pay $100,000 for a file-input CLI which accurately calculates personal income tax. The Government releases the software under BSD. TaxSoftCo Inc. invests $50,000 to build a snazzy GUI around the code and nets a profit of $10,000. Members of the Free Tax Software Consortium donate time worth $10,000 (which doesn't count toward GDP), receive a grant of $2,000 from some industry-supported foundation and build a free GUI which lacks some bells and whistles. Red Menace sells $5,000 worth of support on the free version. Net GDP: $167,000 plus productivity gains from easier-to-use software.
Now release the software under GPL. TaxSoftCo doesn't release because investment costs are now $150,000 (minus some private sector efficiency gains). Red Menace sells three times as much support due to increased usage of the free product. Net GDP: $117,000.
Now assume no government involvement whatsoever. The Free Tax Software group can't get together the $112,000 needed to build the free tax return app. TaxSoftCo invests $150,000 and makes $30,000 profit. Net GDP: $180,000 minus productivity losses from people who now can't afford the product or its free alternative.
Seriously, what do you think would happen?
Probably nothing yet. But if the $2 trillion US Government decides to go fully GNU, software companies would have difficulty competing and innovation (which sometimes takes the form of a talking paperclip) would suffer.
So, this proves we should disolve MS corp, they harm the economy.:) (It's a joke!)
The argument for breaking up MS is essentially the same as the argument against GPL: both use anti-competitive pricing and exclusive contracts.:-)
I also wonder how companies like IBM and Sun that pass for bastions of capitalism can "afford" to support open source and other commie-pinko endeavors while Microsoft can't (8wire.com has a brief analysis of the contrast between Microsoft's and IBM's attitudes towards Linux and open source).
Every private company seeks its own profits. Both IBM and Sun make a good business off hardware and services. They both see Free software as the cheapest way to keep their platforms up-to-date. Sun also sees Microsoft as a threat, and supporting GNU/Linux attacks Microsoft's core revenue stream.
I also can't resist pointing out that a far greater percentage of Finns (Torvalds' comrades) than Americans enjoy the fruits of their nation's success, though I can't say for sure how many of them drive Lincoln Navigators and have personal climate-controlled wine cellars.
I've never been to Finland, but I've heard that Finns like to take solitary hikes in the backcountry under the midnight summer sun. I'd imagine that being passed on the trail by chardonnay-drinking joyriders in a 2-ton truck would kind of ruin the moment, which may be why Finns tolerate $5/gallon petrol.:-)
Why should our governments contribute to closed-source development? It doesn't benefit their citizens
Government investments are often justified as adding in some meaningful way to the economy as measured by GDP and other economic statistics. Proprietary software lives up to this expectation - it can be sold, it has value. How can the "product" of GPL software be quantified in such a way as to add to these statistics? If it can't, then spending $1 billion on free software is equivalent in monetary policy terms to burning $1 billion.
Governments care greatly about the economy, and there's no other way to measure it. If GDP falls, we are said to be in recession. When it rises, we're in a boom. So if the people in government believe the conventional wisdom that they can best serve their fellow citizens by continuing GDP (and tax base) growth, then they are forced to accept Allchin's argument on GPL. Allchin could even go farther in this logic by blaming some of the current economic slowdown on the increased "destruction" of property caused by the recent growth of Linux.
Well, at least in regards to it being an "intellectual property" destroyer. Intellectual property, for Stallman, is the commoditizing of information, which the GPL exists to prevent. So, I don't think he'll object to the statement, what he (and I) object to, is the rather flawed conclusion that this clarification makes.
Yes, but where is the flaw? America and capitalism are synonymous. Commoditizing information is commoditizing work product. While I think you have a strong point to make, many in this community enjoy a comfortable lifestyle due to success in the capitalist system. Take a look at the passionate discussions on this board about Napster. If it is proven that the growth of GPL crashes markets and lays off workers, many will question their support of it. This could be a big, long fight.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't change the main point, that government policy can effect the performance of the rest of the economy and that this is the greatest factor in much government decision-making. I wrote up some thoughts on how releasing government software under BSD might encourage more growth than releasing it under GPL in an earlier reply. I'd be interested to read your opinion on the subject.
Both Napster and GPL have the effect of denaturing intellectual property. That Napster is a black market doesn't change this fact -- its effect is freely available, freely copyable music. That GPL is a voluntary decision made by each contributor also doesn't alter the fact that it spits in the face of IP.
A world without the state's grant of monopoly rights to creators would operate exactly as the GPL does. GPL is like a sign on a post stating "Trespassing, Please! (But only if you allow me to trespass on your land.)" It's legal, and its legality is consistent with the principles of property rights. But its effect is to create a large commune where land is owned by the commune and for the commune. Inside the commune, private property does not exist. Yet from the outside, the commune is identical to other private property. Do the commune-dwellers oppose or support private property rights? Does the commune's existence promote or harm the institution of property?
If a business is viable, the business should be able to compete against free, volunteer-based alternatives. No business should have to compete against the government.
And customers won't either. If the "few changes" cost the company 10% of the original cost of development to build, the only value the company adds is that 10%. If they try to profit as if they'd built the whole thing from scratch, another company (or a free software group) would undercut them, and people wouldn't buy their software. If that software is under GPL, you're really only buying the service package. The (financial) incentive for your vendor to invest in innovations on these products is far less than it would be if the vendor could profit directly from the innovations. Any innovations the vendor pays for will profit the vendor's competitors more than the vendor itself. The GPL forbids you from selling add-ons, open source or not, for GPL-licensed software. You must give the add-ons away for free under GPL or not distribute at all. Who would hire us and why? My guess is less people would be hired and for less compelling reasons.The licensing is what Allchin addresses. A restrictive, proprietary license would allow the government to sell the software, but most people would say that the Government shouldn't engage in commerce. Releasing under the BSD license would allow the private sector (both foreign and domestic) to sell derived works, which would encourage a competitive market for derived works. Under capitalist ideology, free and competitive markets are most efficient at creating wealth and most effective at furthering productivity-enhancing innovation, both of which lead to increased GDP. Releasing under GPL would effectively forbid such a market from developing.
For a simple example, the Government decides to pay $100,000 for a file-input CLI which accurately calculates personal income tax. The Government releases the software under BSD. TaxSoftCo Inc. invests $50,000 to build a snazzy GUI around the code and nets a profit of $10,000. Members of the Free Tax Software Consortium donate time worth $10,000 (which doesn't count toward GDP), receive a grant of $2,000 from some industry-supported foundation and build a free GUI which lacks some bells and whistles. Red Menace sells $5,000 worth of support on the free version. Net GDP: $167,000 plus productivity gains from easier-to-use software.
Now release the software under GPL. TaxSoftCo doesn't release because investment costs are now $150,000 (minus some private sector efficiency gains). Red Menace sells three times as much support due to increased usage of the free product. Net GDP: $117,000.
Now assume no government involvement whatsoever. The Free Tax Software group can't get together the $112,000 needed to build the free tax return app. TaxSoftCo invests $150,000 and makes $30,000 profit. Net GDP: $180,000 minus productivity losses from people who now can't afford the product or its free alternative.
Probably nothing yet. But if the $2 trillion US Government decides to go fully GNU, software companies would have difficulty competing and innovation (which sometimes takes the form of a talking paperclip) would suffer. The argument for breaking up MS is essentially the same as the argument against GPL: both use anti-competitive pricing and exclusive contracts.Government investments are often justified as adding in some meaningful way to the economy as measured by GDP and other economic statistics. Proprietary software lives up to this expectation - it can be sold, it has value. How can the "product" of GPL software be quantified in such a way as to add to these statistics? If it can't, then spending $1 billion on free software is equivalent in monetary policy terms to burning $1 billion.
Governments care greatly about the economy, and there's no other way to measure it. If GDP falls, we are said to be in recession. When it rises, we're in a boom. So if the people in government believe the conventional wisdom that they can best serve their fellow citizens by continuing GDP (and tax base) growth, then they are forced to accept Allchin's argument on GPL. Allchin could even go farther in this logic by blaming some of the current economic slowdown on the increased "destruction" of property caused by the recent growth of Linux.
Yes, but where is the flaw? America and capitalism are synonymous. Commoditizing information is commoditizing work product. While I think you have a strong point to make, many in this community enjoy a comfortable lifestyle due to success in the capitalist system. Take a look at the passionate discussions on this board about Napster. If it is proven that the growth of GPL crashes markets and lays off workers, many will question their support of it. This could be a big, long fight.