Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Roger Fujii wrote:

>Anthony Taylor wrote:
>  
>
>>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).
>>    
>>
>
>actually, it (more or less) is.  You can make a decision for moral, personal
>.... reasons, but if it isn't obviously linked to monetary wealth, it isn't
>an economic reason.  I think you are using the word economy in an incorrect
>way - it is *not* an umbrella term that can be used for evalulate the
>desirableness of a society.
>

Why do people purchase non-essentials in the first place?  Its because 
it adds some sort of value to their lives or business.  In some cases, 
this is non-economic value (like the pleasure value I get from going to 
a good movie); in other cases, it is because the product contributes 
more to my business than the initial purchase cost.  This product is 
*adding* value to my company, as measured by the bottom line.  This 
contributes to the economy.  This is part of the standard definition of 
economy; I'm not making this up as I go along.

As another Tony pointed out, there is a lot of non-monetary 
contributions to an economy: weather, transportation (both by land and 
water), etc.  People do not deny these add to an economy.  Denying other 
infrastructure (such as cheap communications, software, etc) contributes 
to the economy is a fallacy.

And as I asked before (and nobody has answered): if a program is worth 
$1000 to a company, is it worth *less* to that company at $0?  (I'm 
talking about the end-user company, not the selling company.)  And will 
that software contribute less to the economy?


>>Current business practices have focused on the exchange of money, but
>>economic theory does not depend on money.  
>>    
>>
>
>no, but it depends on exchangable value.  
>  
>
Only in specific instances.  In the US, *every* business benefits from 
roads.  (Or, at least, *essentially* every business.)  If roads did not 
exist, our economy would not be nearly as stable as it is now.  Roads 
are funded almost entirely from tax money, which everyone pays (unless 
you are either desparately poor or a large corporation).  I'd wager most 
businesses couldn't even exist with the existence of our road system.

To the business, this is a free resource.  It has no real exchangable 
value.  Yet it undeniably contributes to our economy.

The exchange of money is an indicator of the health of an economy.  It 
is not the health of the economy itself.

>>It depends upon the availablility of resources.  A country can
>>have lots of currency, but without resources, it is a poor country.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh?  Tell that to Japan.  
>

Japan has a great resource: people.  Lots of cheap labor, and lots of 
well-educated engineers.

>>As an example, although no company has made any money off of Linux, how
>>much have other companies *saved* by using Linux?
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt this number is large.  In any case, one could also ask the converse
>"How many companies have been harmed by the GPL?".  Neither question is ever
>going to get an exact answer.  It's like asking how much money is lost to priracy.
>


This number is large, at least in comparison to the size of the 
companies deploying Linux.  For instance, Amazon figures it saved $17M 
by shifting to Linux.  This is by bottom-line analysis.  If you don't 
find this siginficant, I don't know what to tell you.

http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/linux/2001/01086735.html?nw

>The problem is not the "product".  The problem is the infrastructure.  I could
>care less if emacs is GPLed.  But if things like cut/paste mechanism, file formats
>and other infractstruture components are GPLed, it makes avoiding GPL that much
>harder.
>

Ah!  I agree.  This is exactly the same problem we're having with 
Microsoft.  But I don't think you can copyright file formats, and I 
*know* you can't copyright cut/paste.  The only thing in software that 
is copyrightable is the code itself.  The expression of an idea is 
copyrightable; the idea itself must be patented.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>I think you are exaggerating a bit.  The old addage "all politics is local" still
>holds true for many things.  Also, while it *is* possible to separate the money
>from your definition of wealth, it is easily shown that without money, more often
>than not, you don't have wealth.  Look at divorce and a major reason for it.
>
*shudder*  Been there.

I'm not advocating eliminating money.  It's too convenient, a marker for 
the amount of wealth you've accumulated.  My only point is that the 
"economic analysis" showing the evils of the GPL are *way* off the mark, 
and too simplistic, and just downright incorrect.  There are better 
arguments against the GPL; you have pointed out at least one (treating 
X11/BSD licensed code as proprietary), and possibly two (linking to GPL 
libraries in non-GPL code, which is an extension of the first).  There's 
no need to resort to specious and suspect arguments about the potential 
damage to a poor economic model.

>>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?
>>    
>>
>
>well, you have to answer what the farmers, restaurant employees, grocery
>stores, shipper, and all the other people involved with the food industry
>would think.  What are all these people going to do?  How are they going
>to make money to pay for stuff that isn't free?  
>
By writing software?  :)

This is a problem, one that has happened in the past, and will continue 
to happen in the future.  The buggy-whip manufacturers is an old 
standby; so are the auto and steel workers.  In my neck of the woods 
(Southeast Alaska), it's the timber industry.  *Lots* of unemployed 
people in Southeast since the feds started locking up the Tongass 
National Forest.

It's not an easy problem, and one that certainly needs addressed.  But 
if the benefits singificantly outweigh the problems, it's better to 
address the problems instead of fight the change.

For an excellent discussion of a similar topic, check out Alvin 
Toffler's "The Third Wave."  He discusses they dynamics of change within 
a culture.  *Very* interesting reading.  Just keep in mind he wrote this 
at the close of the '70s; some of it has become old hat.  He points out 
that many of our wars have been during economic state-changes (such as 
the shift from agriculture to industrial economies).  Basically, some 
people fight the change, some embrace it, and most are left dazed and 
confused.  (He wrote an earlier book called "Future Shock," which talks 
about the last group.  Another very good book.)

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>You can't rule out "fixed-cost" altogether.  The problem is that you
>are making the assumption that you can pay for the development costs 
>of a product from the price of the first product.  No one would buy
>software under that model, as the price would be prohibitively high.
>While I agree there is a need for a new model, GPL doesn't fit the bill...
>

I do not make that assumption.  It is doubtful a single company could 
today produce an operating system such as Linux or xBSD.  IBM was the 
last to stand a chance, with OS/2, and they squandered their chance. 
 BeOS looked good, but as the founder and CEO pointed out, Microsoft 
killed them.  (Side note: he never once even hints that the GPL or free 
software contributed in the least to the demise of Be.)

Yet there are products like xBSD and Linux.  And there are companies 
that pay to contribute to Linux and xBSD.  So even today, free software 
is getting written.  In the free software world, people don't have to 
*buy* software.  They help fund the development, and in return, they get 
the features they want and need.

As far as the GPL goes: I'm not sure it fits the bill, either.  But it 
at least tries to address the issue, even if a bit over-zealously.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think you mean 'economic model' but rather 'software model', right?
>Software is indeed unique, and a new mechanism for dealing with it is certainly
>needed.  If you mean 'economic model', I'm quite sure there are communes around
>that you could experiment with....
>
>-r
>  
>

Economic model, as it relates to software.  We currently have an 
excellent and time-tested model to generate revenue from the production 
and distribution of goods.  It just doesn't translate well into the 
frictionless world of information exchange.

How do we fund the development of software?  As you have pointed out, 
that *is* an economic question.  But (as another party has mentioned to 
me out-of-band) treating information (software, music, movies) as 
fixed-cost unit items has led to legislation like the DMCA and SSSCA and 
UCITA here in the US, trying to enforce that economic model.  To me, 
this is a huge indication that the economic model we are currently using 
for software (and music and movies, too) is deeply flawed.

There *must* be an answer.  I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, though, 
and don't have one.  At least, one that is demonstrably correct.  I have 
been studying self-forming systems, and perhaps this is what is 
happening now, with the GPL and X11 and BSD licenses; perhaps we are 
building the economic model we need without realizing it, and we are 
currently in a state-transition.

Anyway, this is all just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

                - Tony