I think what you're seeing is that people are willing to endorse the things people say to the extent that they agree with them. Linus is in many ways a politician- he doesn't say much that treads into controversy, whereas both ESR and RMS are well known ideologues.
So people speak for the community when the community agrees, and they don't when they don't, and there's no bright line you can draw between the two cases unless you want to start polling people and getting actual numbers.
punkbuster seems to not work right on my linux install of quake3, it's always complaining that it needs to update versions. Anyone else found a fix for this? I'm patched up to the most current q3 binaries as of about a week ago.
ok kde-istas, here's a test for your windows-integration skills.
I've been using konqueror as a file manager on my gnome desktop on occasion, but there's one thing that makes me give up on it after a while, and that is that I can't find any way to change the default behavior of "drag and drop a file" to be like windows (i.e., "move" if it's on the same file system).
I know about the shift-drop shortcut so don't bother with that, it's horrible because a) it's not a default so it's annoying and b) there's also a shift-select that selects surrounding items when you click, and it's hard to do shift-drop but not shift-click.
If anyone can help me with this, I would love to use konqueror as my default file manager for those times when I really don't feel like typing or when I need to move pictures, etc.
Re:What kind of students were they?
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, let's be clear, there will be a loser: Microsoft. They're obviously behind this for two reasons:
1. The bulk of SCO's funding since the beginning of the lawsuit has been from Microsoft 2. Microsoft has softened their public FUD about linux. They're trying to let someone else play bad cop because they know when they criticize linux unfairly it makes others jump to the defense of linux AND blame Microsoft- when someone else does it for them, the first still happens but the second does not.
It's obvious to informed observers, but not to the press.
The winner so far seems to have been Novell though - people are beginning to see that they are being unfairly maligned, their stock has been climbing like gangbusters.
Is there something wrong with that? If the market says it's free, it's free. Drinking water is essentially free (public fountains everywhere). Should we force people to pay for bottled water?
Realistically though, software creation is hard work, but the monopoly system is stupid. People should sell their labor and reputation for creativity/effectiveness, not the ideas they "own".
People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.
Agreed. Now, let's compare bsd and gpl.
In a U.S. with, let's say, 240 million people:
gpl: 240 million people may make n improvements in software to their hearts content, but may not make them proprietary.
BSD: 240 million people may make n-# of proprietary improvements, but must compete against closed standards for extension protocols and may run afoul of software patents owned by the original licensees.
You see, the fundamental flaw in your argument is that proprietary software IS control by its very nature. It's saying "you can't use this idea unless you pay." GPL is just saying "you can use this idea all you want, but you must preserve the same freedom for everyone else."
Zealotry my left asshole. Let's return to your example.
class YourStuff (GPL) {... };
Fine.
class MyStuff : (WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING USING SOMEONE ELSE'S GPL CODE IN YOUR PROJECT? DO YOU DO THIS WITH COPIES OF VISUAL STUDIO YOU HAVEN'T OBTAINED A LICENSE FOR)
Shit, if I'm a zealot then Bill Gates is Richard M. Stallman.
Ah, no. It's dictating the terms under which one's "intellectual property" (assuming you believe in the concept) can be *used*. The "property" is *not* given away, as the author retains copyright.
The property is given away in every sense that matters except that one can't take it for ones' self to the exclusion of others. It's a gift with conditions. If you don't agree to the conditions you need not accept it. Perhaps you're right, it's more like a product than a gift since you have to pay by meeting the conditions. Either way, it's a way of using the property system as individuals prefer- the very embodiment of capitalism.
It is not the means we are discussing, but the ends
Capitalism and communism are means, not ends. Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies, and to let the market decide their value instead. Capitalist-libertarian to the core. You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.
The Christmas thing was a hyptothetical to prove the point that no matter what you do with your property, as long as you don't appropriate your neighbor's property it's capitalism, not communism. Granting monopolies to idea holders is just poorly implemented capitalism since it lends itself to corporate handouts when the system is abused as it is today.
I am so dumbfounded by your assertion that freely available software is communist that I don't know where to begin. Is Internet Explorer the first step towards the workers revolution? It's freely avilable. You seem to really dislike the idea of benefitting society as a whole. I could make your argument for you, that free software limits the fulfillment of individual greed, and then answer it, but I've wasted enough time on this already.
The SCO case, although I agree it *will* be disproved, has been expensive to disprove, if you'll recall that was my original point- even though SCO is wrong they can still make a software developer's life hell by abusing the copyright/patent/trademark/trade secret systems.
It's become clear to me that you're just wasting my time, and I have less of it to spare these days. Good night.
Tell me, in a capitalist utopia, can't you give stuff away? All the GPL is doing is dictating the terms by which one's own private property is given away. Charity perhaps, but not communism.
Do we ban home made christmas presents because they're communist?
Only if said free software developer has copied his code. Such a thing should be trivial to (dis)prove in court just by looking at it.
Have a look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sco
The rest of your arguments are either answered in my original post or too feeble to bother with.
Well if I haven't lost the right to the same code then we differ over the definition of "proprietary". You writing proprietary code gives me n-1 possible legal modifications to my software, where originally I had n possible legal modifications.
Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats and the gimp was unaffected by.gif patents. Wake up dude.
My statement about authorial control was conditional. If authors get control, then those who want to build a GPL'd software paradise should be able to use their control to build it. If authors don't get control, then the GPL is unnecessary (not to mention unenforceable) because proprietary software doesn't exist.
There are at least three ways in which proprietary software can reduce your ability to produce free software.
1. patents 2. copyright threats (DMCA, etc.) even when the reverse engineering (or unrelated development) is legitimate 3. network effects based on market dominance, i.e. MS Office formats may not be the best but they're on virtually every desktop. Ditto for the version of HTML that Internet Explorer "understands".
I'm sure others can come up with more. If you don't like our happy little GPL software island, just pretend it doesn't exist, don't act like everything that's GPL'd should be LGPL'd or BSD'd so you can build your proprietary empire.
The parent poster and I are NOT bashing the GPL, we are just pointing out that it is NOT free and without restriction.
Your point is misleading, because it's only true in a world with only one person. In any world with more than one person, the GPL creates at least as much freedom as it restricts - i.e., the proprietary developer loses the right to develop a particular extension, and everyone else gains that right.
Put simply, the only "freedom" the GPL restricts is the restriction of freedom.
BSD license allows you to extend a piece of code and patent or copyright or saturate the market with your proprietary enhancement in ways that make free competition difficult. Given the network effects involved in the use of software protocols, proprietary enhancements often become mandatory.
Microsoft didn't extinguish the BSD tcp/ip stack because they continue to profit off of the free work that the BSD folks do, since the license allows them to pick whatever they want and not have to pay for any of the development. This is not the same as arguing that they couldn't or wouldn't if it suited their interest. If Microsoft ever really took a significant majority of the server market, I think all of the sudden you'd see some standards bodies approve Microsoft patented mandatory enhancements to the TCP/IP stack emerge, and the BSD folk would just stand there slack-jawed and wondering as their vaunted interoperability became a felony.
Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.
This is a common misconception. Look, just because someone dresses like a hippy doesn't mean they're a communist. Stallman is the ultimate capitalist, he thinks the market should set the price of ideas without the government creating monopolies in that space. You tell me what part of Stallman's philosophy (rather than his appearance) is anything but capitalist and we'll have a discussion.
Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code
That's not what you originally said, you said if you steal the code, not if you make modifications to it.
I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
I've lost the right to write the same code, especially if you've patented your enhancements. But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.
Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements. If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms. I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.
Imagine I bequeath a free library to the public with the condition that it can never sell books, only lend them. You build a bookstore annex on my public library and make deals with the book industry so that you'll get enough copies of all the new releases to sell, but the library can't buy enough to meet lending demand. You've done something very ugly. You've unfairly (although not illegally) capitalized on the goodwill that the bookstore created by making it harder for the free book community to thrive.
You may not agree with me that this would be a bad thing. But if I build that library with my own labor you ought to respect my wishes if you expect me to respect yours.
People who say the GPL is restrictive seem to imagine that there's only one person in the world, and it's always themselves. "The GPL unfairly restricts my ability to profit off of your work." Waaah.
Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.
In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it. What are you, some kind of kooky communist? Don't use the GPL'd stuff if you don't want to pay for it, don't use Visual Studio if you don't want to pay for it.
In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.
If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else. That's the sense of "having it" that's important. Idea monopolies artificially raise the price of information.
The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.
You warty troll. The GPL has but one restriction- don't use GPL'd software in the creation of proprietary software. This restriction has special network effects: it reduces the freedom of any one party from reducing the freedom of everyone else. The GPL only restricts restrictions, that's a net gain for "unrestricted" software.
Ben Franklin refused a patent on the Franklin Stove, saying it was his civic responsibility to share.
Salk, when asked if he intended to patent the polio vaccine, said that would be "like patenting the sun."
Greed may drive innovation in some cases, but only when there are strong limitations on the duration of the patent/copyright. When you let the rules be set by the greedy like Disney and Microsoft, we get nothing but permanent proprietary lock-ins.
The fact that what they did may have been within their legal rights is irrelevant. What they did was like the Taliban shooting the Buddha. What they did was like burning the Library of Alexandria. What they did was destroy a cultural treasure that was effectively in the public domain.
What they did was WRONG. And it will be an example used in discussions of our idea ownership system for years to come.
If libertarians are anti-government, they should oppose copyright because copyright is government sticking its nose into business by granting monopolies over ideas. I don't care much if people want to keep their software secret- I just oppose the government interfering in business by preventing others from reimplementing it.
Again I think you're just defending the status quo, not a principle.
What if we quadruple copyright lengths and penalties for violation- would the market work even harder for us then?
Another way to look at it. Alanis Morisette and I are playing skeeball. Some portion of the balls are red and I can only use the non-red balls. It's possible that I'll beat her but ceteris paribus, she's going to win even if I'm a little better than her.
Put us on a level playing field and competition will show the true victor. Proprietary software monopolies handicap free software firms and artificially reduce choice as a result.
Likewise, I don't want to see the government outlaw either proprietary software or free software because one choice is supposedly better than another. The "invisible hand" of the market will easily determine over time which is the better choice.
The invisible hand doesn't work in monopoly conditions. The mechanism by which the invisible hand works is competition, and it's obvious right now that the playing field is anything but fair.
Elimination of idea monopolies takes away one persons ability to make choices for others, so it is a net gain in the choice you prefer.
All laws restrict freedom, i.e., your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Well, Microsoft's ability to create proprietary standards through market domination ought to end at my computer. They are making choices for me about the standard document format, about what os device drivers get written for, etc. and it is restricting my (and your) choices.
If it's truly choice you love and not just the status quo, then the elimination of software monopolies would create more choices than it would eliminate. We'd have any number of implementations of windows rather than just the MS approved ones, and perhaps someone would actually make a secure one someday.
Likewise, source code monopolies mostly impact other developers. Consumers are affected only indirectly.
Markets are no panacea it's true, but utilites are public goods and are charged to operate in the public interest rather than in the corporate interest. If Microsoft was a utility I'd be all for it, but then keeping the source a secret would be stupid - instead the government would mandate that Windows be a standard OS for certain uses and pay for development by a small tax on bandwidth or somesuch.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention you'd have to take a number and wait for all the people and zombie boxen queued up ahead of you.
I think what you're seeing is that people are willing to endorse the things people say to the extent that they agree with them. Linus is in many ways a politician- he doesn't say much that treads into controversy, whereas both ESR and RMS are well known ideologues.
So people speak for the community when the community agrees, and they don't when they don't, and there's no bright line you can draw between the two cases unless you want to start polling people and getting actual numbers.
I'm using the .torrent and getting about 6k down, 20k up on my cable modem- is this what others are seeing?
punkbuster seems to not work right on my linux install of quake3, it's always complaining that it needs to update versions. Anyone else found a fix for this? I'm patched up to the most current q3 binaries as of about a week ago.
ok kde-istas, here's a test for your windows-integration skills.
I've been using konqueror as a file manager on my gnome desktop on occasion, but there's one thing that makes me give up on it after a while, and that is that I can't find any way to change the default behavior of "drag and drop a file" to be like windows (i.e., "move" if it's on the same file system).
I know about the shift-drop shortcut so don't bother with that, it's horrible because a) it's not a default so it's annoying and b) there's also a shift-select that selects surrounding items when you click, and it's hard to do shift-drop but not shift-click.
If anyone can help me with this, I would love to use konqueror as my default file manager for those times when I really don't feel like typing or when I need to move pictures, etc.
Well, let's be clear, there will be a loser: Microsoft. They're obviously behind this for two reasons:
1. The bulk of SCO's funding since the beginning of the lawsuit has been from Microsoft
2. Microsoft has softened their public FUD about linux. They're trying to let someone else play bad cop because they know when they criticize linux unfairly it makes others jump to the defense of linux AND blame Microsoft- when someone else does it for them, the first still happens but the second does not.
It's obvious to informed observers, but not to the press.
The winner so far seems to have been Novell though - people are beginning to see that they are being unfairly maligned, their stock has been climbing like gangbusters.
isn't that a big skinny zero?
Is there something wrong with that? If the market says it's free, it's free. Drinking water is essentially free (public fountains everywhere). Should we force people to pay for bottled water?
Realistically though, software creation is hard work, but the monopoly system is stupid. People should sell their labor and reputation for creativity/effectiveness, not the ideas they "own".
People want control over other people, whilst at the same time seeking to limit the control others have over themselves.
...
Agreed. Now, let's compare bsd and gpl.
In a U.S. with, let's say, 240 million people:
gpl:
240 million people may make n improvements in software to their hearts content, but may not make them proprietary.
BSD: 240 million people may make n-# of proprietary improvements, but must compete against closed standards for extension protocols and may run afoul of software patents owned by the original licensees.
You see, the fundamental flaw in your argument is that proprietary software IS control by its very nature. It's saying "you can't use this idea unless you pay." GPL is just saying "you can use this idea all you want, but you must preserve the same freedom for everyone else."
Zealotry my left asshole. Let's return to your example.
class YourStuff (GPL)
{
};
Fine.
class MyStuff : (WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING USING SOMEONE ELSE'S GPL CODE IN YOUR PROJECT? DO YOU DO THIS WITH COPIES OF VISUAL STUDIO YOU HAVEN'T OBTAINED A LICENSE FOR)
Shit, if I'm a zealot then Bill Gates is Richard M. Stallman.
Ah, no. It's dictating the terms under which one's "intellectual property" (assuming you believe in the concept) can be *used*. The "property" is *not* given away, as the author retains copyright.
The property is given away in every sense that matters except that one can't take it for ones' self to the exclusion of others. It's a gift with conditions. If you don't agree to the conditions you need not accept it. Perhaps you're right, it's more like a product than a gift since you have to pay by meeting the conditions. Either way, it's a way of using the property system as individuals prefer- the very embodiment of capitalism.
It is not the means we are discussing, but the ends
Capitalism and communism are means, not ends. Stallman's goals is to eliminate idea monopolies, and to let the market decide their value instead. Capitalist-libertarian to the core. You just don't like him because he dresses like a hippy and exposes your hypocrisy.
The Christmas thing was a hyptothetical to prove the point that no matter what you do with your property, as long as you don't appropriate your neighbor's property it's capitalism, not communism. Granting monopolies to idea holders is just poorly implemented capitalism since it lends itself to corporate handouts when the system is abused as it is today.
I am so dumbfounded by your assertion that freely available software is communist that I don't know where to begin. Is Internet Explorer the first step towards the workers revolution? It's freely avilable. You seem to really dislike the idea of benefitting society as a whole. I could make your argument for you, that free software limits the fulfillment of individual greed, and then answer it, but I've wasted enough time on this already.
The SCO case, although I agree it *will* be disproved, has been expensive to disprove, if you'll recall that was my original point- even though SCO is wrong they can still make a software developer's life hell by abusing the copyright/patent/trademark/trade secret systems.
It's become clear to me that you're just wasting my time, and I have less of it to spare these days. Good night.
Tell me, in a capitalist utopia, can't you give stuff away? All the GPL is doing is dictating the terms by which one's own private property is given away. Charity perhaps, but not communism.
Do we ban home made christmas presents because they're communist?
Only if said free software developer has copied his code. Such a thing should be trivial to (dis)prove in court just by looking at it.
Have a look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sco
The rest of your arguments are either answered in my original post or too feeble to bother with.
Well if I haven't lost the right to the same code then we differ over the definition of "proprietary". You writing proprietary code gives me n-1 possible legal modifications to my software, where originally I had n possible legal modifications.
.gif patents. Wake up dude.
Oh sure, OpenOffice isn't hampered by MS proprietary file formats and the gimp was unaffected by
My statement about authorial control was conditional. If authors get control, then those who want to build a GPL'd software paradise should be able to use their control to build it. If authors don't get control, then the GPL is unnecessary (not to mention unenforceable) because proprietary software doesn't exist.
There are at least three ways in which proprietary software can reduce your ability to produce free software.
1. patents
2. copyright threats (DMCA, etc.) even when the reverse engineering (or unrelated development) is legitimate
3. network effects based on market dominance, i.e. MS Office formats may not be the best but they're on virtually every desktop. Ditto for the version of HTML that Internet Explorer "understands".
I'm sure others can come up with more. If you don't like our happy little GPL software island, just pretend it doesn't exist, don't act like everything that's GPL'd should be LGPL'd or BSD'd so you can build your proprietary empire.
The parent poster and I are NOT bashing the GPL, we are just pointing out that it is NOT free and without restriction.
Your point is misleading, because it's only true in a world with only one person. In any world with more than one person, the GPL creates at least as much freedom as it restricts - i.e., the proprietary developer loses the right to develop a particular extension, and everyone else gains that right.
Put simply, the only "freedom" the GPL restricts is the restriction of freedom.
BSD license allows you to extend a piece of code and patent or copyright or saturate the market with your proprietary enhancement in ways that make free competition difficult. Given the network effects involved in the use of software protocols, proprietary enhancements often become mandatory.
Microsoft didn't extinguish the BSD tcp/ip stack because they continue to profit off of the free work that the BSD folks do, since the license allows them to pick whatever they want and not have to pay for any of the development. This is not the same as arguing that they couldn't or wouldn't if it suited their interest. If Microsoft ever really took a significant majority of the server market, I think all of the sudden you'd see some standards bodies approve Microsoft patented mandatory enhancements to the TCP/IP stack emerge, and the BSD folk would just stand there slack-jawed and wondering as their vaunted interoperability became a felony.
Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.
This is a common misconception. Look, just because someone dresses like a hippy doesn't mean they're a communist. Stallman is the ultimate capitalist, he thinks the market should set the price of ideas without the government creating monopolies in that space. You tell me what part of Stallman's philosophy (rather than his appearance) is anything but capitalist and we'll have a discussion.
Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code
That's not what you originally said, you said if you steal the code, not if you make modifications to it.
I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
I've lost the right to write the same code, especially if you've patented your enhancements. But even if you're just copyrighting your code, you can probably draw a free software developer into a legal battle she can not afford even if she's right.
Furthermore, your proprietary innovation reduces the incentive to create free enhancements. If authors do have the right to control their works (i.e., if idea monopolies are legitimate), then you should respect my terms. I personally do not want to see someone profit off of my free work without giving back equally.
Imagine I bequeath a free library to the public with the condition that it can never sell books, only lend them. You build a bookstore annex on my public library and make deals with the book industry so that you'll get enough copies of all the new releases to sell, but the library can't buy enough to meet lending demand. You've done something very ugly. You've unfairly (although not illegally) capitalized on the goodwill that the bookstore created by making it harder for the free book community to thrive.
You may not agree with me that this would be a bad thing. But if I build that library with my own labor you ought to respect my wishes if you expect me to respect yours.
People who say the GPL is restrictive seem to imagine that there's only one person in the world, and it's always themselves. "The GPL unfairly restricts my ability to profit off of your work." Waaah.
Um, insightful? wake up modkids.
Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.
In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it. What are you, some kind of kooky communist? Don't use the GPL'd stuff if you don't want to pay for it, don't use Visual Studio if you don't want to pay for it.
In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.
If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else. That's the sense of "having it" that's important. Idea monopolies artificially raise the price of information.
The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.
You warty troll. The GPL has but one restriction- don't use GPL'd software in the creation of proprietary software. This restriction has special network effects: it reduces the freedom of any one party from reducing the freedom of everyone else. The GPL only restricts restrictions, that's a net gain for "unrestricted" software.
Nothing happens when I issue the following command
/dev/fd.o /mnt/floppy
mount
Am I using this wrong?
More examples:
Ben Franklin refused a patent on the Franklin Stove, saying it was his civic responsibility to share.
Salk, when asked if he intended to patent the polio vaccine, said that would be "like patenting the sun."
Greed may drive innovation in some cases, but only when there are strong limitations on the duration of the patent/copyright. When you let the rules be set by the greedy like Disney and Microsoft, we get nothing but permanent proprietary lock-ins.
Could it be any more obvious that SCO has become Microsoft's PR department? They're basically Darth Maul to Emperor Bill.
No, they're not, because they're not allowed to be.
Sincerely,
the female geeks of america.
(posting this on behalf of my gf)
The fact that what they did may have been within their legal rights is irrelevant. What they did was like the Taliban shooting the Buddha. What they did was like burning the Library of Alexandria. What they did was destroy a cultural treasure that was effectively in the public domain.
What they did was WRONG. And it will be an example used in discussions of our idea ownership system for years to come.
If libertarians are anti-government, they should oppose copyright because copyright is government sticking its nose into business by granting monopolies over ideas. I don't care much if people want to keep their software secret- I just oppose the government interfering in business by preventing others from reimplementing it.
Again I think you're just defending the status quo, not a principle.
What if we quadruple copyright lengths and penalties for violation- would the market work even harder for us then?
Another way to look at it. Alanis Morisette and I are playing skeeball. Some portion of the balls are red and I can only use the non-red balls. It's possible that I'll beat her but ceteris paribus, she's going to win even if I'm a little better than her.
Put us on a level playing field and competition will show the true victor. Proprietary software monopolies handicap free software firms and artificially reduce choice as a result.
Likewise, I don't want to see the government outlaw either proprietary software or free software because one choice is supposedly better than another. The "invisible hand" of the market will easily determine over time which is the better choice.
The invisible hand doesn't work in monopoly conditions. The mechanism by which the invisible hand works is competition, and it's obvious right now that the playing field is anything but fair.
Elimination of idea monopolies takes away one persons ability to make choices for others, so it is a net gain in the choice you prefer.
All laws restrict freedom, i.e., your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Well, Microsoft's ability to create proprietary standards through market domination ought to end at my computer. They are making choices for me about the standard document format, about what os device drivers get written for, etc. and it is restricting my (and your) choices.
If it's truly choice you love and not just the status quo, then the elimination of software monopolies would create more choices than it would eliminate. We'd have any number of implementations of windows rather than just the MS approved ones, and perhaps someone would actually make a secure one someday.
Likewise, source code monopolies mostly impact other developers. Consumers are affected only indirectly.
Markets are no panacea it's true, but utilites are public goods and are charged to operate in the public interest rather than in the corporate interest. If Microsoft was a utility I'd be all for it, but then keeping the source a secret would be stupid - instead the government would mandate that Windows be a standard OS for certain uses and pay for development by a small tax on bandwidth or somesuch.
Water is free, even given away in public fountains- but people still pay for the bottled stuff.
All you libertarians out there who trust the invisible hand- it's put up or shut up time.
Q: How will Standard Oil's employees make their living if you bust their monopoly?
A: Less offensively, in a competitive market.