Re: Economics and the GPL

"Roger Fujii" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt Seitz <[email protected]> wrote:

> you're confusing different issues.  GPL has been around way before M$ was a
> monopoly, so using it as an anti-monopoly response isn't right.  

On the contrary, GPL is a primarily an anti-monopoly tool:  the monopoly of
copyright.  Anyone who holds a copyright (or patent) holds a legal monopoly on
that product.  See Jefferson's letters to Madison:  he opposed unlimited
copyright because copyright was a type of monopoly, and unlimited copyright an
unlimited monopoly.  And that monopoly power can be used to create larger
monopolies, just as Microsoft used their monopoly on Windows to create a
monopoly on consumer operating systems.

> Besides,  anti-trust laws are for anticompetitive behavior - it is not an 
> anti-monopoly remedy.

True, but tactics that are considered "anticompetitive" for a monopoly would
not be considered "anticompetitive" for others.

> Why favor ANYONE by changing the rules (assuming the rules are fair)?  

To assure that there is real competition, where an underdog has a reasonable
chance of defeating a current champion.

> the golf/bowler analogy isn't appropriate.  You make handicaps because there 
> would be no point of the competition if you didn't.  

I think the analogy fits perfectly.  We limit the actions of monopolies for the
same reason we give handicaps in sports:  in order to assure there is a true
competition, one where the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.  

> A good general rule for "fairness" is that you treat people equally.  

That is certainly one valid definition of fairness.  Another good, general rule
for fairness is that you give everyone a roughly equal chance of success.  By
that standard, you may have to treat people diffrently in order to give them an
equal chance of success.

>How can you be fair by discriminating?  

Again, that is certainly a valid argument against antitrust laws, as well as
other laws that try to "level the playing field" (affirmative action, etc.). 
In one sense, I can see that these are "unfair":  they treat different people
or groups differently.
 
> > RMS and the FSF have repeatedly stated that they support reducing the
length of
> > copyright.  
> It's unclear that they *truely* would support such a move, as a relatively
> short copyright would undermine the GPL (since they would be affect by this
> too), releasing more code into public domain. 

Sure, but it would also undermine proprietary code, forcing more of it into the
public domain, which is what the FSF really wants.  Remember, the FSF's
ultimate goal is not to have all code be under the GPL, their ultimate goal is
to allow all individuals the right to modify and redistribute software.  The
GPL is just a way to try to reach that goal using the current copyright system.
 Changing the copyright system is an even more desirable end, but it requires
political action.  The FSF can use the GPL today, without having to wait for
legislative change.
 
> Given that they argue against
> X11, it's not like they are consistant in their argument.  

What the FSF argues against is putting code into X11 that companies can then
use without having to return their code into PD.  The FSF would love it if all
copyright holders were forced to offer their code under an X11 license.

> You can't be FOR
> putting more stuff into PD and argue against putting stuff into PD.  

No, but you can be against putting some stuff into PD while allowing others to
not put stuff into PD.  That is the FSF's position.


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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