Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it,
you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite
is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I
can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or
cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car,
or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of
appropriate public laws, naturally).
So what's wrong with calling software a service?
What's wrong will selling software that can't be
modified?
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that
can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own
anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the
power.
It's not clear to me that lack of material ownership of items
necessarily implies "living at the mercy of others."
I may not own the house in which I live, nor the car I drive, nor the
restaurant where I dine nor even the tuxedo I wear to parties, yet you
would be hard pressed to assert that I "live at the mercy of others."
Indeed, when it comes to competing for the cash in our pockets, we may
observe that it is businesses who live at the mercy of the
consumer.
Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or
purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long
defunct.
If you want to be able to modify the source code of a product, nothing
stops you from asking the vendor for it. If you can't negotiate a deal
with them, you can ask other vendors, or write the software yourself.
Just like automobiles, there are (s/w development) kits
available.
If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of
luck.
You can purchase the rights to the code. When businesses fail, assets
are typically liquidated.
If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in
providing it, I'm out of luck.
As I mentioned above, you can approach other vendors or develop the
software yourself.
The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale
of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that
only persists because everyone ignores it.
Agreed. Software isn't really a "product" in the common sense of the
word as it's sold like a service.
Things that can easily be copied, should be. Idea ownership
represents the creation of artificial monopolies and makes true
capitalism impossible.
...
Why should some professions get special monopolies over the "product of
their labor"? The only justification worth considering is that it
advances the commons by creating incentives for creation, but that's not
the case anymore, the commons is starving.
I agree that "idea ownership" stifles capitalism, but it is not at all
clear to me that a system void of this construct would generate the
productivity you imply. I believe that the concept of IP, and the
promise of its enforcement, currently stimulates a large amount of
entrepreneurial activity and R&D.
I think what you are really worried about is that people won't get
paid for their labor if you can share the fruits of those labors for
free,...
Yes.
... but there's other ways to ensure payment- don't create until
you've been paid, create serially and build a reputation,
etc.
Such a system might work, but consider this for a moment: What company
would fund the development of an essential software system knowing that
upon completion, the source code would be freely available to all of its
competitors?
But we're not there yet becaues government monopolies are too good to
pass up and everyone in an intellectual property related profession is
too attached to Uncle Sam's Tit (TM) to ever wean themselves and compete
in a truly free market.
I agree that "idea ownership" has no place in a truly free market.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the benefits that we, as
consumers, have enjoyed thanks to the incentives of "government
(sponsored) monopolies."
If I write a program, and let you have a copy, copyright law forbids you
to distribute it, or to distribute derivitive works based upon it. The
GPL removes some of those restrictions: it allows you to redistribute
the work, or derivitives based upon it, under certain conditions. What
those conditions boil down to is that you cannot reimpose the
restrictions which the GPL has removed.
That is the issue: the GPL dictates strict terms under which the source
code may be used. The GPL specificly prohibits using significant
pieces of the GPL'd code in a proprietary software package offered for
sale to the public.
So why doesn't this prohibition on use qualify as a
restriction?
Why should my ideas, which I intended to be free, create profit for
someone else?
This is a fallacy. Simply by making your ideas available for public
consumption, people can profit. If they use your ideas (code,
blueprint, recipe, patent, whatever), they've already added value to
their own lives. They don't need to re-package and sell your ideas in
order to profit from them!
the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS
No way. RMS wants to see the value of people's time set by the
market, not by government imposed monopolies over ideas. It doesn't take
any of your "time" to let someone download a copy of the software you've
already written. The economy of software production needs to be
restructured from a less monopolistic model to one that actually values
a programmer's time according to what it is worth in the
marketplace.
The work products of many professions can be easily copied or
downloaded. Should all these things be free?
Photographer
Musician
Writer
Blueprints: Architect, Chip designer
Coke's secret formula
Famous Amos Cookie Recipe
Why should software engineers be obligated to freely share the product
of their labor with the rest of world, while these professions aren't?
He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the
person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify
it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does
the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use
it?
There are many companies that sell products and services that you're not
allowed to "modify." Renting a hotel room; leasing a car; taking a bus
ride; borrowing a DVD; using cable TV and descrambler boxes;
etc.
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
But think about all the contributors to MySQL, who were doing it because
it was "free" and "open" software. MySQL AB (the company who really does
control MySQL) is going to make an awful lot of money from all that
work. They wouldn't be backed by Venture Capital money if they
weren't. But all those contributors shall see not a cent!
The contributors may not see a monetary profit, but they'll be able to
use a better software package.
I'm not trying to defend what MySQL AB is doing. In the world of OSS, I
think they're the exception, not the rule.
An interesting corollary: Look at what M$ does. They'll ship their beta
products to thousands of companies who want early access to the
software. As far as I know, they don't pay these companies to perform
what essentially amounts to real-world QA. Further, M$ doesn't hesitate
to charge customers for early releases of software. Such releases are
often considered too unstable by many M$ customers. M$ actually gets
their customers to pony up cash in order to discover its bugs.
Is there a doctor in the house?
on
HighWLAN
·
· Score: 1
The word "geek" doesn't quite do the man justice here. There a distant line that one crosses, a line that, for most, is so far beyond the visible horizon that it can only be imagined. That line is known to psychiatrists and researchers as Techno-Hallucinogenic Obsession (THO).
Symptoms of this affliction vary. The primary one is a complete focus on one's project wearing blinders so tight that one often forgets simple details (eg. forgetting to download a chatd), or one of the primary project motivators (eg. saving money on cell phone charges). Other symptoms include bottom-up planning (eg. spending 100 miles trying to think of things to talk about) and a sense of false importance (eg. sending out coordinates via email). Scientists have found only two temporary cures so far: falling in love and becoming a manager.
THO: Damn, I miss that feeling.
P.S. Emacs probably *is* the best vehicle for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it, you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car, or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of appropriate public laws, naturally).
So what's wrong with calling software a service?
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the power.
It's not clear to me that lack of material ownership of items necessarily implies "living at the mercy of others."
I may not own the house in which I live, nor the car I drive, nor the restaurant where I dine nor even the tuxedo I wear to parties, yet you would be hard pressed to assert that I "live at the mercy of others." Indeed, when it comes to competing for the cash in our pockets, we may observe that it is businesses who live at the mercy of the consumer.
Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long defunct.
If you want to be able to modify the source code of a product, nothing stops you from asking the vendor for it. If you can't negotiate a deal with them, you can ask other vendors, or write the software yourself. Just like automobiles, there are (s/w development) kits available.
If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of luck.
You can purchase the rights to the code. When businesses fail, assets are typically liquidated.
If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in providing it, I'm out of luck.
As I mentioned above, you can approach other vendors or develop the software yourself.
The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that only persists because everyone ignores it.
Agreed. Software isn't really a "product" in the common sense of the word as it's sold like a service.
Things that can easily be copied, should be. Idea ownership represents the creation of artificial monopolies and makes true capitalism impossible.
Why should some professions get special monopolies over the "product of their labor"? The only justification worth considering is that it advances the commons by creating incentives for creation, but that's not the case anymore, the commons is starving.
I agree that "idea ownership" stifles capitalism, but it is not at all clear to me that a system void of this construct would generate the productivity you imply. I believe that the concept of IP, and the promise of its enforcement, currently stimulates a large amount of entrepreneurial activity and R&D.
I think what you are really worried about is that people won't get paid for their labor if you can share the fruits of those labors for free,
Yes.
Such a system might work, but consider this for a moment: What company would fund the development of an essential software system knowing that upon completion, the source code would be freely available to all of its competitors?
But we're not there yet becaues government monopolies are too good to pass up and everyone in an intellectual property related profession is too attached to Uncle Sam's Tit (TM) to ever wean themselves and compete in a truly free market.
I agree that "idea ownership" has no place in a truly free market. Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the benefits that we, as consumers, have enjoyed thanks to the incentives of "government (sponsored) monopolies."
So why do you say "the commons is starving?"
If I write a program, and let you have a copy, copyright law forbids you to distribute it, or to distribute derivitive works based upon it. The GPL removes some of those restrictions: it allows you to redistribute the work, or derivitives based upon it, under certain conditions. What those conditions boil down to is that you cannot reimpose the restrictions which the GPL has removed.
That is the issue: the GPL dictates strict terms under which the source code may be used. The GPL specificly prohibits using significant pieces of the GPL'd code in a proprietary software package offered for sale to the public.
So why doesn't this prohibition on use qualify as a restriction?
Why should my ideas, which I intended to be free, create profit for someone else?
This is a fallacy. Simply by making your ideas available for public consumption, people can profit. If they use your ideas (code, blueprint, recipe, patent, whatever), they've already added value to their own lives. They don't need to re-package and sell your ideas in order to profit from them!
the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS
No way. RMS wants to see the value of people's time set by the market, not by government imposed monopolies over ideas. It doesn't take any of your "time" to let someone download a copy of the software you've already written. The economy of software production needs to be restructured from a less monopolistic model to one that actually values a programmer's time according to what it is worth in the marketplace.
The work products of many professions can be easily copied or downloaded. Should all these things be free?
Why should software engineers be obligated to freely share the product of their labor with the rest of world, while these professions aren't?
He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use it?
There are many companies that sell products and services that you're not allowed to "modify." Renting a hotel room; leasing a car; taking a bus ride; borrowing a DVD; using cable TV and descrambler boxes; etc.
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
My understanding is that this book is a collection of previously written articles and essays that have already been published on the Web.
But think about all the contributors to MySQL, who were doing it because it was "free" and "open" software. MySQL AB (the company who really does control MySQL) is going to make an awful lot of money from all that work. They wouldn't be backed by Venture Capital money if they weren't. But all those contributors shall see not a cent!
The contributors may not see a monetary profit, but they'll be able to use a better software package.
I'm not trying to defend what MySQL AB is doing. In the world of OSS, I think they're the exception, not the rule.
An interesting corollary: Look at what M$ does. They'll ship their beta products to thousands of companies who want early access to the software. As far as I know, they don't pay these companies to perform what essentially amounts to real-world QA. Further, M$ doesn't hesitate to charge customers for early releases of software. Such releases are often considered too unstable by many M$ customers. M$ actually gets their customers to pony up cash in order to discover its bugs.
The word "geek" doesn't quite do the man justice here. There a distant line that one crosses, a line that, for most, is so far beyond the visible horizon that it can only be imagined. That line is known to psychiatrists and researchers as Techno-Hallucinogenic Obsession (THO).
Symptoms of this affliction vary. The primary one is a complete focus on one's project wearing blinders so tight that one often forgets simple details (eg. forgetting to download a chatd), or one of the primary project motivators (eg. saving money on cell phone charges). Other symptoms include bottom-up planning (eg. spending 100 miles trying to think of things to talk about) and a sense of false importance (eg. sending out coordinates via email). Scientists have found only two temporary cures so far: falling in love and becoming a manager.
THO: Damn, I miss that feeling.
P.S. Emacs probably *is* the best vehicle for the job.