Re: Economics and the GPL

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:

> Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> 
> >Perhaps the GPL does a better job of pursuing Stallman's goals, but it's 
> >hard to claim that it gives the programmer more freedom than licenses like 
> >the BSD/X11 licenses...
> 
> Simple-- it gives the author the ability to contribute to the public 
> trust without contributing their code to proprietary commercial 
> endeavors, which are far more likely to be used in a manner the author 
> dislikes (such as tactical incompatibilities to disadvantage 
> competitors-- remember the Microsoft/Kerberos affair?).

And what if I dislike the manner in which Stallman uses GPL software?  He 
wields GPL software like a weapon against anyone who doesn't fall in step 
with his demands.  "Oh yeah?  Well, you can't use this code and your good 
competitors can!  Too bad for you!"

The Microsoft/Kerberos affair was an issue due to abuse of their monopoly 
position, not so much because they appropriated BSD code.

> That is the single freedom the GPL gives an author: the freedom from 
> proprietary perversion for simple profit motive.

The GPL is proprietary perversion for Stallman's political goals.  Is that 
really so much better than simple profit motive?

> >>I sincerely hope that soon nobody will consider operating systems, word 
> >>processors, web browsers, and spreadsheet programs worth paying for.
> >
> >If you don't consider them worth paying for, then you must consider such 
> >programs "finished" and not worth developing any further.  After all, if 
> >they're going to be developed further, that's going to be paid for in some 
> >fashion, even if it's just in terms of the free time of volunteers.  And if 
> >there's a real cost to be paid, why should the end users who benefit avoid 
> >sharing that cost and leave the burden to someone else?
> 
> Why do I program?  Because it's *fun*.  I don't expect profit.  I don't 
> expect money.  The problem with *all* arguments against the GPL is that 
> they insist programmers can't profit from their code.  In the monetary 
> sense, this may or may not be true; in the absolute sense, it's complete 
> rubbish.  I profit from my code because I *enjoy* writing it in the 
> first place.  I profit from my code because I like people writing me and 
> saying, "This is cool, thanks!"  I profit from my code because I get 
> exactly what I want out of my computer, and not what some moron in 
> marketting *thinks* I want out of my computer.

This is why free projects get volunteer efforts in the first place.  But 
there's only so much volunteer effort available.  It's a limited resource.

> As I'm already making a good living, why should someone else pay for me 
> doing something I enjoy?

How about if you could make a good living doing what you enjoy, making 
software that people need and want?  Wouldn't that be better?  But it's 
sure harder to do because of the way the GPL works.

> And I have made money from my programming: I've a damned good job that 
> pays better than any job I've had before, simply based on my code.  And 
> I may even be able to code at this job, though it currently isn't 
> required; it's all "systems integration," my favorite.

That's important work, no doubt.  But the time you spend working at your 
day job is time you can't spend on these public projects.  That's a loss
(and opportunity cost) to those projects.  If those projects brought in a 
revenue stream from the users who benefit, and it would pay you as well as 
you get paid now, wouldn't that benefit the projects and those very users 
paying you?

> Anyway, I really am going back to lurking now.  It's been a slow Friday 
> at work, and I've been feeling a little fiesty.  Thanks, all, for the 
> good discussions.

This constant debate is getting exhausting.  At some point here, I'll have 
to return to a state of barely paying attention to this list... :-)

Yes, I'm sure there are some people who just can't wait for that. :-P

Deven