Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> 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.

What happens if someday the GPL becomes dominant and low-paying programming 
jobs are the only kind left?  If all the high-paying ones are gone because 
the GPL killed the revenue streams that made them possible?  At that point, 
it's hard to call it voluntary.

On the separate question of volunteerism, it should be encouraged -- not 
banned.  Some volunteer work might endanger a company's profits, but that's 
life.  The volunteers have every right to spend their time without any 
compensation if they choose to do so.

I'm concerned about the possibility that programmers might become low-paid 
or unemployed because the economic model to sustain them under the GPL just 
isn't there, despite all the assumptiosn to the contrary.

> 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.

Far from it.  I agree with Heinlein -- just because a company was able to 
make a profit in a certain way doesn't mean society is obligated to ensure 
that they always can.

> I'm of two minds on the issue of cheap imports and protectionism.  On the 
> one hand, 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).

Corporate globalism is a dangerous thing, because it assumes that geography 
should be fungible.  But laws and customs vary widely across geopolitical 
boundaries -- unless we have one world government and one world culture, 
it's unrealistic to view the entire world as a global marketplace.

Ironically, we have corporations wanting to take advantage of cheap foreign 
labor and lax foreign environmental laws yet still be able to differentiate 
markets so they can charge higher prices for DVDs in England than the US.
They really want to have their cake and eat it too, don't they?

But let's not get into a new debate about the evils of modern multinational 
corporatism.  We've already strayed far enough off-topic by now.

> 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. 

Yes, it can be hard to draw that line.  My concern is simply that the GPL 
could become as damaging a monopoly as Microsoft or any other proprietary 
player, precisely because the GPL is itself proprietary in nature.

I have no concern about the BSD license taking over the world -- it's a 
truly free license that wouldn't harm anyone, even if the majority of the 
software in the world ends up under the BSD license...

Deven