Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias) / GPL and Economics

Matt Seitz <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

This makes the assumption that GPL is "anything and everything".  

> 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).

But using this analogy for the GPL, if you used *any* Japanese part for a domestic
car, you had to buy 100% of your parts from Japan.  *THIS* is the problem.
 
> 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.

Competition is one thing.  Unfair competition (dumping) is another.  I don't think
you can find too many people who thing dumping in the long term is a good thing.
In the software arena, while you can never ban free (X11) software for free speech
reasons, it allows itself to be used as foundations for other things, which mitigates
the dumping effect.  GPL does not allow this, which aggravates the dumping effect.

 
Greg Alexander <[email protected]> wrote:
> The GPL sets up a very simple barter economy for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

[snip]

What you describe is a copyleft.  GPL is goes beyond a weak copyleft because
it also makes assertions about its USE.

> 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.

???  Third parties will have the *same* availability as Bob.  GPL can't
stop "local" modifications because of "fair use".  This is another problem
that the GPL has - that someone cannot do for you and give it to you, what
you can do yourself. 

> All of this is EXACTLY the way a Free Market economy is supposed to work.

Nothing exclusionary should really be part of a "Free Market" economy.  Propriatary
software shouldn't exclude non-propriatary extension, nor should 'free' software
exclude propriatary ones.

> 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.

Given the lukewarm commercial success that GPL based entities has achieved,
it's not like what you mention should be used to tout GPL.  Red Hat has stated
that their future is with server installations and support (and not the desktop),
and HP is in large flux (compaq merger).

> 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.

You think gateway is at all interested in developing and maintaining an OS?
 
> 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.

Why don't we wait until RedHat makes a REAL profit before you state that
they "make money"....  
 
-r