Re: Economics and the GPL

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only problem with this idea is that the GPL isn't really "free market" 
> because it coerces the programmer into applying the GPL to other code that 
> might not have been licensed that way given a choice.  

This seems to say that an owner exercising control and setting terms on how
others may use his property is not a "free market". That seems to me to be an
abuse of the term "free market".  

In general, in a free market the owner of any resource has the right to say
under what terms he will allow others to use that resource.  Usually, such
terms involve others giving something to the resource's owner, whether it be
money or some other item of value.  Others have the right to either accept the
owner's terms and use the resource, or reject the terms and give up use of the
resource.

In this case of GPL, all the owner is saying is that the cost of using my
source code is giving me your modifications in return.  It's a simple exchange
of value for value.  And as you point out below, others are always free to
refuse those terms.

> If the programmer 
> loses to right to choose the license on their own code, the market can 
> hardly be said to be "free".

Exactly.  And the GPL is an example of a programmer exercising the right to
choose the license on their own code.  Denying the right to license under GPL
would be undermining a "free" market.
  
> Sure, the programmer can avoid using any GPL code at all, 

Just like a programmer can avoid using proprietary code to avoid a licensing
fee or other terms of the copyright owner.

>but that puts him 
> at a disadvantage against a competitor who can draw on that code.  

Again, welcome to the free market.  Why should one have to give a competitor
access to one's resources?  In this case, why should a GPL programmer have to
give proprietary software access to his resources?

> Right now, the GPL is the underdog -- if it ever becomes the majority, it 
> could drive competitors out of business because of the artificial subsidy 
> it creates for programmers willing to use the GPL.

This is a valid concern, and your analogy to antitrust is valid.  Just as the
Windows monopoly distorts competition, so too could a GPL monopoly distort
competition.  The solution to both is to restrict the monopolies.  In the case
of Microsoft, traditional antitrust laws can serve to control it.  In the case
of the GPL, changes to the copyright law could serve to limit its influence.

> I agree.  Copyrights were already too long BEFORE the Sonny Bono Copyright 
> Term Extension Act.  Five years might be a bit short.  

As I mentioned in another note, I'm not necessarily married to the 5 year
number.    

> Do we really want to 
> start differentiating between different types of expression?

It does make some sense to me that some forms of expression (software) have a
shorter useful shelf life than others (novels), but again I'm not wedded to the
idea of separate copyright durations.  

=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com