GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> However, if 
> computers continue to require skilled labor, which can no longer earn a 
> decent living because of the GPL, then I'll have a reason to be upset, just 
> like factory workers have reason to be upset about imports from countries 
> where the workers are so poorly paid that they're virtually slave labor...

The comparison of the GPL to underpaid foreign workers is a false analogy. 
Wtih underpaid workers, the workers work for low pay because they have no
better choice.  With GPL projects, the workers are volunteers.  I don't think
I'd want a society that says I can't do volunteer work because it might
endanger a company's profits.

Yes, I do believe that the profit incentive is important and beneficial.  But
it is not so sacred that we must ban anything and everything that threatens a
company's profits.

I'm of two minds on the issue of cheap imports and protectionism.  On the one
had, allowing cheaper imports can benefit domestic consumers and foreign
workers, while forcing domestic producers to be more competitive.  For example,
think how Japanese imports forced American car manufacturers to improve.  On
the other hand, as you point out, cheap imports can result in poverty both
abroad (from bad foreign labor laws) and here (from lost jobs).  

I think we have to look at why a competitor is cheaper.  Is it because of
exploitive, damaging, antisocial acts (slave labor, poor safety, etc.) or
because they have found a better way to do things, or because they are willing
to make more sacrifices than others in order to be successful?  There is
sometimes a fine line between protecting the public and protecting a particular
business. 


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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