GPL and Economics

All this talk saying that the GPL will destroy the ability for
programmers to get paid to me misses the fundamental advantage of the
GPL... that it ensures that programmers DO get paid.

The GPL sets up a very simple barter economy for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 
Software is worth almost nothing because the costs of producing multiple
copies are almost nothing.  It's the intellectual property in that
software that is worth something.

The GPL is a license to intellectual property that works like this: 
Alice releases her software under the GPL.  This is in fact an offer to
Barter (Buying and selling are the same in a barter economy).  For
purposes of this discussion the other party will be called Bob.

What Alice wishes to get from Bob is:
1.) A license for the IP contained in any modifications Bob makes to the
software.
2.) Access and Distribution rights to the IP in future versions of the
software. (see below)
3.) Advertising for her IP offer through distribution of the combination
of Bob's IP and her own.


What Alice offers are:
1.) Distribution rights to the IP in Alice's software when combined with
Bob's modifications, under the terms of the GPL.
2.) Access and distribution rights to any IP in future modifications
Alice might make to the combined software, under the terms of the GPL. 
(Bob doesn't have this guarantee until he offers some of his code under
the GPL, but gains it after the initial transaction for any given block
of code, so this is not an incentive for future purchases.)


As an enticement to get Bob to purchase her software, Alice advertises
by offering:
1.) The right to distribute her IP, as-is, under the terms of the GPL.
(the analog of #1)
2.) Access to her IP as-is, under the terms of the GPL. (a loose analog
of #2)


Nondeveloper third parties or third parties making non-GPL extensions
are free to receive the "trial versions" of the IP, but since they do
not offer Alice any IP in return, under her terms, they do not receive
distribution rights to Alice's IP combined with the non-GPL extensions,
and they do not receive any form of guarantee that Alice's future work
to produce related IP will be made available to them.



All of this is EXACTLY the way a Free Market economy is supposed to
work.  Alice offers something of value (distribution rights to her IP)
in exchange for something else of value (distribution rights to Bob's
IP).  Alice advertises her product by making certain things available to
all third parties.

Notice that end users are nowhere in the picture.  That's because
they're just window-shoppers in this transaction.  They're potential
customers who haven't offered anything to trade.


So, if there's no money in these transactions, why bother?  For private
developers working in their free time, access to the future IP of others
is payment enough.  For companies like Redhat, the distribution rights
are of value, because they can sell packaged distributions to end
users.  To a company like HP, the advertising is what's important
because it helps them sell hardware and services.


Software developers have a big role in this market, as they are the
producers of the IP in the first place (even if employed by a
corporation).  Proprietary software distributors are perhaps harmed, but
this seems unlikely.  There are two possible scenarios if GPL software
becomes and remains dominant:

1.) Software sold for money becomes unviable because of the interference
of the GPL advertising.  If so, companies like RedHat will also not be
able to sell their distributions, so the GPL IP distribution rights
market will also be harmed.  In the end, private individuals and
hardware sellers will have to pick up the slack, as they still get value
for the exchange of IP that the GPL offers, otherwise the GPL will not
remain dominant.

2.) RedHat and other software distributors continue to make money
because they still offer something of value when they distribute
software to customers.  In this case, although the details of the
license provided to the customers is different, both RedHat and
proprietary software distributors continue to make similar offers:
access to IP in exchange for money.


All of this makes sense economically within the relevent markets, and
software developers still make something that the markets value, and
thus will remain employed.

GREG


NOTE: My views are my own and may not reflect those of my employer.