Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Brett Glass wrote:

>At 07:37 PM 4/12/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
>
>>The economy is not merely
>>the exchange of green paper things (or prettily-colored paper things,
>>for folks with better-looking money).
>>
>
>It's clear from the above that you either never took -- or flunked --
>Econ 101. The key measure of an economy is the velocity of money -- the 
>rate at which money and other valuable objects are changing hands. No 
>commerce, no economy. The unmeasurable "intrinsic" value which you tout
>means nothing. It is only when something is bought, sold, or exchanged, 
>by knowledgeable, willing people, that a snapshot of its worth is created. 
>
>And, as anyone who has ever dealt with real estate appraisals knows, it's 
>only a short-lived snapshot. After a relatively short period of time, 
>that transaction can no longer be relied upon to determine an object's 
>worth and a new appraisal must be performed.
>
>The purpose of the GPL is to kill commercial software -- and, hence,
>commerce. And, hence, the software economy.
>
>--Brett Glass
>
It's clear from the above that you never took, or flunked, science 101 
(*and* econ 101).  Otherwise, you would know that the measure of a thing 
is not the thing itself.  Yes, the key indicator of an economy is the 
amount of goods sold, bartered, exchanged, and purchased.  But that is 
all it is: an indicator.  That's like saying that the stock market 
activity report (one indicator of stock market health) is the stock 
market itself.

An economy must have a basis.  That basis is the intrinsic worth of an 
item.  (An economy cannot be based on money, because money is really 
just bytes in a bank.)  If something adds to the economy with numbers of 
one (say, I own a car and it helps me deliver milk), it makes logical 
sense it will add millions more to the economy if there are millions 
more available.  I'm not saying it's linear; some may receive more value 
from the same object than others receive.  Or, as a zen master once 
said, a single hammer builds many houses.

Now, for things like gold and diamonds, this does not work; they 
contribute very little to the economy itself.  Their intrinsic worth is 
not in what they contribute, but in an artificial value placed on their 
scarcity.  (Both have industrial applications, but their worth is not 
based on their practical applications.)  In that case, what you say is 
perfectly true: their worth is really their *perceived* value.

And finally, a puzzle: if a software program is valuable at $1000, why 
would it be less valuable at $0?

                    - Tony