Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Anthony Taylor wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
I agree with you 200% the thing about software is that it is NOT a 
commodity.  Proprietory software tries to make it into one but  it's 
not.  Microsoft got into it's current possition as the dominant desktop 
software largely through "piracy" (not by them but by users)[1]. It was 
and still is easy to get a copy of MS Windows and the cost of copying is 
paulty.  When IBM introduced the IBM PC  it was open architechture 
(kinda like Open Source)  but they were the "Evil  Empire" back then , 
and Microsoft was the cunning  upstart.  Rightly or not OS2 and 
Microchannel were seen as IBM's attempt to regain control of the PC world.  

Economies are not about money.  During the 60's the US economy was as 
strong as it ever was.  The  US government spent billions of dollars on 
the space program  and as far as anything material all they got back was 
a couple of rocks.  Now I challange anyone to tell me that the  US space 
program was a huge waste of money and resources.  The US Space Program 
was one of the largest economic engines that fed the economy through the 
60's and 70's.

*GPL and other  copyleft licenses change the face of the sofware 
industry but that is just part of life. Sun released the source code to 
StarOffice because it didn't want to see Microsoft dictate what computer 
platform you had to run. The same with Netscape, and AOL  is willing to 
spend more money because they don't want microsoft to control the 
internet (they want to).  Companys are willing to spend money on open 
source products because they provide the tools to do the work that they 
need to do. If I was GateWay or Toshiba or any other hardware 
manufacturer I would invest a programmer or two in BSD/Linux/wine. The 
reason: I don't want to be dictated to by microsoft.  

"Open source" software is not going to go away. Thats the beauty  of it, 
and anyone can play.   You just  need to know the rules.


Tony Lambregts


[1] Well yes by them too. but that was not my point at the time.