Re: Charging the Charger

   But full OSS systems are infeasible if software patents exist.  So you
   would rule out patents, simply to ensure a safe haven for OSS.

   Even if it is not your argument, it certainly sounds that way.  And
   the FSF certainly _does_ say that OSS should be the *only* legal way
   to write software.  The FSF does work within the democratic system,
   but the goal is clear: 100% free software.

   I'm sorry, but the political economic reality is that OSS advocacy in
   those terms is going to sound extremist and very special-interest-
   oriented to the legislators when compared to Holmes's report.  We need
   to do better than that.

I'd say that the relevant question (to paraphrase SJT's sig) is not
how to do best by free software, but how to do best in terms of social
welfare.  IMO, at this point, the hypothesis that "free is better"
makes a better starting place than an ending-up place.  And it isn't
necessarily the best starting hypothesis at all - i.e., to be made
testable it would need a lot of honing.

It may help to broaden the class of subject matter under consideration
somewhat.  (A standard trick that can sometimes have surprisingly
interesting results.)

Here, I'd suggest looking at "free content" generally, not just free
software.

If we think about "free math" or "free chemistry" or "free economics"
or "free medicine", do we get the same sorts of thoughts as we do when
we think about free software, or does something _different_ come to
mind?

Ben Franklin didn't patent his inventions, although he could have -
why?  (And does Franklin's thinking apply to software patents)?

And also, we might look at arguments "for" and "against" the public
domain (another potentially easy way to generalize).  FSF and Lessig
seem to dig copyright (and they aren't the only ones...).  But some
folks prefer to go straight to PD.