Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Okay, lots of good points which I will take some time later to discuss,
but one point above all stood out, which I would like to answer now
(while at work; don't tell the boss):

Roger Fujii wrote:

  >Anthony Taylor wrote:
  >
  >>The mapping is already done.  We have determined that software
  >>contributes to the economy, though  think we may overestimate that
  >>contribution.  We have further determined that having a store of
  >>available source code adds value to the economy.  (This was established
  >>when you said some companies would need the source code as a basis for
  >>their product.)  Does it not make sense that the more code that is
  >>available, and the more software that is available, the greater the
  >>contribution to the economy?  Or is there some limit of which I'm not
aware?
  >>
  >
  >This is true for X11.  With GPL, which requires derivatives to be
free, it can
  >easily be argued that it DECREASES the economy.  After all, if you can
only make $30,
  >instead of $300, the net result is that you make less of a
contribution.  You might
  >say that there is others that MAKE more money than you lost, but I
haven't seen any
  >evidence of this.  No linux distribution I know of is profitable.
This isn't a good
  >sign.
  >

This is exactly what I'm talking about: when I discuss the economy, I am
discussing the wealth of society.  When you discuss economy, you discuss
the ability to extract money from society.  The economy is not merely
the exchange of green paper things (or prettily-colored paper things,
for folks with better-looking money).  Current business practices have
focused on the exchange of money, but economic theory does not depend on
money.  It depends upon the availablility of resources.  A country can
have lots of currency, but without resources, it is a poor country.  As
an example, although no company has made any money off of Linux, how
much have other companies *saved* by using Linux?  And if programmers
are willing to code Linux for free, what difference does it make if any
distribution is *ever* profitable?

Try to decouple money from wealth.  It *is* possible.  Once you do that,
it is easier to see how money-obsessed our society has become, to the
point where corporations have more power than all the individuals
combined, and the people allow it; to the point where a contribution
to the economy is measured by the amount of money a company can
extract from its customers.

Imagine the replicators from Star Trek, or (better) the CHON food
factories from the sequels to Gateway (Beyond the Blue Event Horizon,
etc).  Would we be richer or poorer if we had something that could
create food from what is essentially air?  And would it make us any
richer if we had to pay someone for food that was essentially free?

This is the essence of software.  Once it is created, the product is
essentially free.  So the fixed-cost unit model does not work, because
that is *not* the model of the object itself, and we shouldn't force
software into that model.  We need a new model.

And I admit, I do not know what that economic model is.  That doesn't
mean it doesn't exist, though.  And, like economic corrections of the 
past, I suspect it will happen with or without our cooperation.

                      - Tony