Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Fuzzy Kitties and Pink Unicorns (Updated)
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, March 28, 2007

One of the commenters to my last post on Microsoft weighed in with this gem.
Linux and open source are gaining popularity with the generation that really believes that information, entertainment, and software should just be free.
And how, pray, is that supposed to work precisely? The "Linux generation" may believe all sorts of things should be so. That has no effect whatsoever on how the world actually works.

In the real world, where people have to do inconvenient things like buy food and housing, people are not in the habit of working for free. People don't produce goods or services for the sheer joy of doing so. They do so in order to purchase the things they wish to consume.

Information isn't free. It never has been. It never will be.

The "open source" software movement, for example, doesn't give away free software. It merely looks free to most people, but only because someone else is paying for it. The developers who build open source applications, such as OpenOffice, pay for the software in terms of the opportunity costs of using their time to provide code, rather than providing different code that a customer would be willing to pay for. Or, they may be doing it in order to invest in their skills, which will enable them to get a better programming job later, in which case, the cost of producing the open source software is paid by a future employer in terms of increased income later. Maybe the developers participate for reasons of personal interest or pure vanity, in which case they pay for the software in the cost of their own time and effort.

But make no mistake. The software isn't "free". It just looks free to the end user, because other people are picking up the tab. Similarly, my dog thinks puppy chow is free. I know differently.

We still live in a world of scarce resources, where prices force those resources into their highest-valued uses. As long as scarcity exists, nothing is free. There is no free lunch.

You may think things "should" be different, but that is your opinion, not a statement of reality.

And, frankly, it's a remarkably silly—and immoral—opinion. It assumes that others have an obligation to provide you with something you value, without an exchange of anything of value for it.

Why, exactly, will people make movies, music, or anything else, if they get no compensation for it? And why, exactly, do you think you have a right to the fruits of their labor without paying for it? What obligation does another person have to provide you with the things you desire?

This whole "Information wants to be free" is utter hogwash. Information doesn't want anything. People want information that they consider valuable, but don't want to incur the inconvenient obligation of actually exchanging something of value for it.

That's not a position of moral superiority. That's just selfishness.

UPDATE: A commenter responds:
You misunderstand the true economics of open source.
No. I don't. I understand them perfectly well. It is the "movies, music and software should be free" crowd that lacks understanding.
It is not about cost or how to pay for things.
But of course it is. It's always about that. The payment simply might not be in money, per se. The developer may simply see working on open source as fun little hobby. Doesn't matter. He's still paying for it in opportunity costs, i.e., the income he chooses to forego in order to pursue his hobby. It's still a cost, though, and the developer is the one paying it.
The larger projects are generally developed and supported by professionals whose salaries get paid, usually indirectly, by open-source-related revenues.
Or, as I wrote in the post, a third party other than the end user pays for it. In that case, the open source application itself is merely a loss leader, whose cost is paid for by the sale of other products and services.
Just as some software domains are still dominated by proprietary solutions, some (perhaps most) of music, writing and the other arts will be restrictively licensed. However, some will find viable open license models.
Some are finding those models viable now. I can go to a number of free music sites and download music. In many cases, the music is free because the artist is trying to secure an audience in the hope of making a living by creating music in the future. The artist is paying for the music now, in the expectation of future—and presumably larger—revenues.

My point, though, really has nothing to do with whether there are circumstances where open source works. Loss-leading, after all, has long been a staple of tradition retail promotion.

My larger point is to reject the philosophical expectation that any class of good or service "should" be free. To the extent that the producer of open source software—or any other product—offers it for "free", it is done so voluntarily, either to obtain revenue from follow-on products, as a promotion to increase interest, or for personal satisfaction as a hobby. But, in all those cases, nothing has been created for "free". The costs are merely transferred to someone other than the average end user. It looks free to many people, but that's all.

The problem isn't with any voluntary open source model. The problem is with the philosophical contention that all information services, be they books, music, movies, or, yes, software, should be made free to end users to do with as they please.

It is a rejection of intellectual property rights, specifically, and all property rights in general. It is the assumption that there is an obligation on providers to provide end users with a thing for something other than it costs, and that end users have a right to impose that obligation on others for their own convenience.

That is a profoundly immoral and anti-freedom contention.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Wait - are you trying to say there’s no such thing as a free lunch? Who knew?:)

I would add that OpenOffice 2 is a really decent product. It’s easy to use and doesn’t have a whole lot of the annoying features included by MS Office.
 
Written By: Firedrake
URL: http://
And there’s the guy who recommended OpenOffice (and Trillian) to me. :)
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Linux and open source are gaining popularity with the generation that really believes that information, entertainment, and software should just be free.
FREE WILLY!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Linux and open source are gaining popularity with the generation that really believes that information, entertainment, and software should just be free.
Linux and open source are gaining popularity with many others than those mentioned here.

I don’t understand how this model survives, but not only does it survive, it thrives.

Open Office, Firefox, Gimp......all quality products.

They are finding ways to exist and improve and I appreciate them.

Go open source
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
People don’t produce goods or services for the sheer joy of doing so.
Yes they do. Usually though, they can not do it on a sustained basis. Open source seems to be different.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Personally, I can take linux or leave it. I don’t really care either way. But that the model is existed for as long as it has, would seem to put a few dents in Dale’s argument. It doesn’t defeat it, but....

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
...the generation that really believes that information, entertainment, and software should just be free.

News flash: They also believe healthcare should be free.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
You misunderstand the true economics of open source. It is not about cost or how to pay for things. It is about collaboration and how to make things. The comment you quoted may have been pollyanna-ish in thinking that the open source model will work well for all domains, but that deceit is not new or unique to the Internet; ever since Marx, idealists young and old have thought that many things should be free of charge. The key difference is that computers make the cost of copying almost zero.

At the risk of talking right past your point — which I agree with, as far as you went — here is why costs to users can be effectively zero and can stay that way without market distortions.

There are a lot of open source projects that are primarily hobby projects, where the developers are out to scratch their own itch, but that is the long tail relative to the big-name open source projects. The larger projects are generally developed and supported by professionals whose salaries get paid, usually indirectly, by open-source-related revenues.

For example, various companies take the PostgreSQL database software and make commercial variants of it. Many other companies use either the open source version or one of the commercial versions. Both kinds of companies hire or contract out to PostgreSQL’s core developers to enhance the database. They find that they get more input, quicker feedback, higher quality, and/or a variety of other benefits by doing that instead of paying for offerings from Oracle.

A huge amount of the Linux kernel development is ultimately paid for by hardware companies. They see better sales in return for that, through many channels: better support for their hardware configurations, good public relations with geeks, and so forth.

For a lot of users the monetary cost of open source software is important, but the low cost to users is really a happy side effect of the open development model. Compared to single-company or even consortium development models, the open source model reduces the barriers to making software that you or your customers want.

Most open source advocates understand those benefits — and also realize the limits of the model. It does not work well for manufacturing: if one needs to invest seven or eight figures in equipment, raw materials and training before producing copies, engineering costs to reinvent the wheel can be put on the table. The open source model comes into its own for digital content, where the cost to modify an artifact is very little more than labor and where the result can be easily copied and given to others.

Software was an early adopter of this approach. Social commentaries (in the form of blogs) have taken it to heart as well. Reference documentation, a la Wikipedia, is at a much earlier stage. More traditional subjects of copyright are trying to figure it out in forums like Creative Commons and online music retailing. Just as some software domains are still dominated by proprietary solutions, some (perhaps most) of music, writing and the other arts will be restrictively licensed. However, some will find viable open license models.
 
Written By: Michael Poole
URL: http://
First, for all the Linux users/cultists, I give you this...

Second:
The key difference is that computers make the cost of copying almost zero.
here is why costs to users can be effectively zero
Herein lies the problem with what you say. "almost zero" and "effectively zero" are not "zero". Close doesn’t count, even in economics. There. Is. Still. A. Cost.
For example, various companies take the PostgreSQL database software and make commercial variants of it.
and
Many other companies use either the open source version or one of the commercial versions. Both kinds of companies hire or contract out to PostgreSQL’s core developers to enhance the database.
Here you seem to ignore the fact that you are validating 100% what Dale says. Cost. Commercial variants? Are those varients then free to the consumer? No? Goodness me, then what benifit is said open-source? Or hiring people to work the open-source. That’s a cost to the business using the "free" software, a cost that likely wouldn’t be there if they bought a commercial product (which is merely the substitution of one cost for another)

As for open-source music, it’s called ’public domain’ and isn’t exactly chart-toping. You get what you pay for (and sometimes you pay for what you get).

Open-source is exactly as Dale said. It isn’t free. It’s costs are simply distributed elsewhere, places you aren’t likely to encounter. The cost for OpenOffice to you might be zero, but there were costs involved in it’s creation, and thus can not be truly free.
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Open-source is exactly as Dale said. It isn’t free. It’s costs are simply distributed elsewhere, places you aren’t likely to encounter. The cost for OpenOffice to you might be zero, but there were costs involved in it’s creation, and thus can not be truly free
Of course ...it’s not completely free.....so......
The model is working, producing some very good alternatives to Microsoft.
It doesn’t have to be bigger better or anything else........ it is usable and valuable...
What is the problem with open source?
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
I use both open source and proprietary software solutions at work. My company pays money for both.
But make no mistake. The software isn’t "free".
Dale, do you really understand what is meant when open source advocates champion its ’free’ nature?

Open Source definition here

The value people (should) see in open source is not how much it costs (or doesn’t cost) in money, time, etc. Its true value is in the freedom it provides.

That appeals to some, not to others. Some cars are black, some are blue. I am glad I live in a country where I have options.

I wouldn’t support any law demanding all software be open source, nor do I feel that those who choose to only use open source are immoral.
My larger point is to reject the philosophical expectation that any class of good or service "should" be free.
I would agree that individuals who expect things to be free of charge (free as in beer, as they say) are somewhat misguided, to say the least.

If your rant was simply about those people I wouldn’t have anything to disagree with.

However, based on your post, I would encourage you to research a bit more into the ’free’ nature of open source software.
 
Written By: FRNM
URL: http://
Scott- There is a cost when I upload or download a gigabyte or so over a broadband network connection. It is simply low enough that I don’t bother to accurately measure it. That is what I meant by effectively zero. Pretending that is a significant cost is silly.

There is a cost when I spend my free time to develop open source chat software. I could calculate that, but money is not my motivation for doing it. The incremental cost between making that software at all and making it open source is between roughly zero and moderately negative (due to other people who feed their changes or ideas back to me). The same logic holds true for many hobby-type open source developers.

You also misunderstood my comment about the commercial variants of PostgreSQL. They exist, but their vendors do contribute to development on the underlying open source version. Why would those companies do that if they thought paying for private changes was always more cost-effective?

There are definite costs to IBM when they dedicate however many software developers to work on Linux. I am sure that IBM tracks that, and knows how many millions it costs them each year. IBM’s calculation is clearly that it is more cost-effective to do that — knowing the development and distribution model of Linux — than to only develop their proprietary Unixes (AIX and Dynix).

Professional open source coders do not exist in a vacuum. Their funding usually comes from funding for less cost-effective proprietary software, either developed by their employer or by other companies who charged the first company for access or know-how in the hooks.

I do not pretend the costs are zero, since I pay those costs in kind, but you and Dale seem to have tunnel vision on end-user cost while ignoring supply side efficiencies. I meant that to be the central point of my first post: "For a lot of users the monetary cost of open source software is important, but the low cost to users is really a happy side effect of the open development model."
 
Written By: Michael Poole
URL: http://
Another commenter touched on this but in the open source world free has a couple of meanings. "Free as in beer" (doesn’t cost any money), and "free as in speech" (you can charge for it but the source code remains available to the world). Perhaps the original comment was referring to open source, free (as in speech) software?
 
Written By: Eric
URL: http://
OK, let’s also examine this from the angle of end user costs.

MS Office 2007 it stands now, is retailing for a shade under $500 a copy.

Can someone explain to me how Open office compares in terms of cost?

Assuming the cost is being transferred elsewhere, to allow Open office (As an example) to be without cost to the end user, what costs are incurred and to whom? It seems to me that the answers to such questions are key to dicussing the topic fully.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Sure - integrate that ’free’ software into your system because one of the "free source!" guys swears it’s just great. Construct some key features around it (PGP encryption as an example) in your commercial system. You might get your techno geeks (who frequently don’t concern themselves with the potential legalistics of the agreements) to observe some of the license agreements as they’re downloading it. And there are almost always license agreements, even if you don’t appreciate what they can lead to (it’s FREE! Why should there be a license agreement for it anyway!? I don’t get it!? Just click ’I Agree’ and let’s get goin! IT’S FREE!!!!).

Till you reach the day it’s no longer free (see that pesky license agreement), and your system is bound to it, and you get the choice:

Seek other software to replace it, which may not be free to use, and won’t be free to re-integrate, or QA, plus updating user documentation and install guides. Not to mention forced upgrades on an otherwise content customer base, which costs them time and money too...

Or

pay a license fee for what was once ’free’.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Sure - integrate that ’free’ software into your system because one of the "free source!" guys swears it’s just great. Construct some key features around it (PGP encryption as an example) in your commercial system.
If your complaint is to be that the foundation is changable in a freebie bit of software and therefore problems when writing to it,(And I think your point a valid one) I think I need to remind you those supportability problems are hardly limited to the freebie world. Need I refer you to the running commentary on this blog (And many others) as regards the aforementioned Office 2007 and the changes made therein, and the compatability issues this casues?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Bit - nope, not the compatibility issue, it’s when that license suddenly grows fangs and teeth and stops being ’free’ because the owners/creators/license holding parties have leveraged it sufficently to have worth and someone is now charging for it’s use.

Supportability is, well, what it is, there’s always better, faster (left out bigger and newer, because they aren’t always good things - see Microsoft!). Sensible reasons for the base to change I understand. Those are givens any time you aren’t using all your own proprietary modules/objects for commercial software (not to mention the simple danger that your function provider can always go tango uniform on you). But as a seller, you can always opt to stay on older versions, so long as you pay the, you knew ahead of time, license fee. But people shouldn’t be basing their decisions on ’it’s FREE!’ because if it gets widely used there’s a very distinct possibility it will wander from the path of freedom and onto the path of commercial fee charging licensed software.

In the case of Microsludge’s attitude, which seems to be ’heh, because we’re Microsoft! What’s it to ya!’, there’s no defense. They continually get users used to a working interface and then change not just the annoying bits, but the whole friggin thing because some new group of techies arrives on the scene with their idea of what’s cool and sells that it’s the way to go. I think they’d do that a little less if they didn’t pretty much have the world by the short and curlies, but, there ya have it.

Aw hell, with a moniker like Bit-Head, I need to tell you any of this?
Next I’ll be selling coal in Newcastle.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Bit - nope, not the compatibility issue, it’s when that license suddenly grows fangs and teeth and stops being ’free’ because the owners/creators/license holding parties have leveraged it sufficently to have worth and someone is now charging for it’s use.
They really can’t do that. If you change the license then others will fork (split the code base) from the previous license and claim no relationship with the new license. That is if the original license supported forking.

I use a lot of open source to do real work and my own cardinal rule is to use those packages with ASLv2 (Apache source license v2) which pretty much allows you to do whatever you want with it. If I find a bug I email one of the committers and he/she will put it back in.

I run a few open source packages and for me, this is my technical hobby. I continuously tinker with them in much the same way that other people run civial war miniatures battles. Sometimes I add a new committer and that person takes over a part of it. Each time I get to use it in a commercial consulting gig, I ask the end customer if I can put the new enhancements into the base distro and if they say yes I do and the code base gets a sudden boost.

I don’t understand why people get their nickers in a twist over open source. Some is good, some bad, caveat emptor. Sometimes it is a better solution than commercial products, sometimes not. The role of architect/engineer is to decide when to go open source and when to go commercial. It isn’t that cut and dried to say commercial is always better. Take the Apache web server for example.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
We got caught in a PGP license change last year, hence my recently acquired opinion/feeling about freeness. Prior to that it was all nichts to me since the systems I worked on were proprietary (can you say dying?) in nature.

caveat emptor - that’s the point exactly. As long as people understand what they’re choosing to use, and the license makes the dangers (if any) clear, and someone pays attention to that. These guys didn’t, and the ’free’ PGP code suddenly grew teeth and fangs and demanded financial appeasement bit them in the hindmost in September 2005.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Perhaps your readers should familiarize themselves with the Free Software Foundation’s definition of free software. Here is an excerpt taken from their definition:

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

``Free software’’ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free’’ as in ``free speech,’’ not as in ``free beer.’’

Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.


 
Written By: E. Dale Franks, Sr.
URL: http://www.edfmin.org
Bit - nope, not the compatibility issue, it’s when that license suddenly grows fangs and teeth and stops being ’free’ because the owners/creators/license holding parties have leveraged it sufficently to have worth and someone is now charging for it’s use.
Perhaps. (Cap Joes comments are very much to the point)
But even absent that, at that point, you do have the option of moving to a different platform. And one assumes there’s always another of these coming along.

But perhaps part of what we’re missing here is the differences between the home environment...(And the small business environment, versus big busieness. Each has their own need for standards, visavie supportability. I can get away with running a mixed environment at home. 2-Xp/1-NT server /2-2000/ 1-2000 server, and a couple Linux boxes, and one Novell box I’ve never had the heart to down. I can support that because I know where all the bodies are buried, and there’s not a lot of downside financially if one or more of them goes bye- bye. Bump that to a the 6000 some- odd nodes I control from my perch here at work, and the supportability situation changes completely.
Aw hell, with a moniker like Bit-Head, I need to tell you any of this?
(Snork!) Ahhhhmmmm.... no.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
But even absent that, at that point, you do have the option of moving to a different platform.
Right, which these folks did, and at which point the use of ’free’ stuff took on a cost (devel, qa, etc) to my customer because they had to research a replacement, which wasn’t free, and change the in-house code over to use the new API’s, which wasn’t free, and so on.

I can’t say if the license fee paid for using non-free code in the first place would have exceeded the savings they garnered for the 4 years they were able to use the free stuff VS the development/qa and opportunity costs when they had to cut over to the newer licensed stuff.

Your points are well taken though, it probably said ’free’ on the box when they ordered it (I wasn’t here at the time), but like one of those weekends spent at a luxury resort (and you’re only required to spend 90 minutes in a sales presentation!) there was probably a hook in there all along, so choosing to go that way in the first place was the mistake, not the concept of broadly developed free software as enumerated by Mr Franks Sr above.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I help write a bit of Open Source blogging software (Subtext) I spend MY time working on it and expect nothing in payment from those who use it.

What I get from it is preferred Microsoft status, extra padding on my resume, and a sharpened skill set which I can then use to extract more money from my clients. (What I also get are a bunch of a**holes who think I do it out of benevolence and expect me to jump at whatever bugs happen to affect them the most.)

For those who puzzle over why open-source is doing so well or think Dale is off the mark, re-read the previous paragraph. I gain a metric sh!tload of benefits from my doing so. So does every person who rewrites a protocol stack or OpenGL call for (insert flavor of Linux here). Working on Open Source is a fantastic way to increase your skills without the fear of failure costing you a job.

Eventually,this will taper off. As more and more tools are written, the pool of usable software will dilute. How many Linux distros are there now? Can your mother or father install one of those distros and then be expected to know which tar.gz package to download for updates? And will they know which video card driver update works if they have to search newsgroups to find it? No. They would go to nVidia and download the latest from them. Which was probably written by the same guy who wrote the ’free’ one, only nVidia realized he knew what he was doing and hired him. Hence his payment for his work.

You cannot repeal the law of economics, even with open source software.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
Robb’s take sums it up pretty well. The real limitation on open source is that it’s a lot easier to get people to invest time to make something work than to get them to invest time to make something easy.

Making software that a 70-year-old first-time-user could actually use it effectively is difficult and boring work. And it requires a combination of skills - coding alone is not enough. UI design, usability testing, functional testing, installation and deployment specialists - the list of skills and capabilities needed for that kind of software is very long. The more complex the software and the broader the range of potential users, the harder it is for an open source effort to compete with a commercial effort. No open source effort approaches, for example, the Macintosh experience.

Now, when a particular type of software reaches a certain level of maturity, the potential for open source to duplicate it increases because the costs (in terms of skill sets and time investment) go down. Word processors are well understood pieces of software, so making an open source word processor is feasible. It still won’t do everything a commercial product will do, but it can do a core set of functions pretty well, and duplicate the UI, file formats, and other aspects of commercial products.

That’s only possible, however, because the commercial products did it first, and on a pretty large scale. Innovative open source efforts are quite rare because the economics work against it. Apache does great, OpenOffice does OK, but where are the serious open source versions of Adobe Illustrator? Sure, there are open source versions out there, but you won’t find many commercial artists using them because those guys need to be productive and paying a few hundred bucks for a glitch-free and highly functional program just makes sense.

There are plenty of places open source makes sense, but extending that argument to become an open source zealot and thinking that just about all software needs to follow that model is pretty silly. From a libertarian perspective, the creator of the software has every right to reap rewards from that investment in the open market.

I see a lot of open source zealots in their twenties that cool their ardor considerably when they acquire families and career. As demands on their time go up (the marginal value of their time increases, in economic terms), they are no longer willing to invest that time in something with no defined return. they can’t afford to, in the face of alternatives that will put real money in their hands.

I think it’s fine for those building expertise and reputation to do so in open source, and giving their time away in the process. I see the same thing in other places. Some folks speak to user groups and at conferences for free or for next to nothing so they can build a reputation. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Everyone gets to choose whether they want to take those risks and tradeoffs or not.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
The problem isn’t with any voluntary open source model. The problem is with the philosophical contention that all information services, be they books, music, movies, or, yes, software, should be made free to end users to do with as they please.

It is a rejection of intellectual property rights, specifically, and all property rights in general. It is the assumption that there is an obligation on providers to provide end users with a thing for something other than it costs, and that end users have a right to impose that obligation on others for their own convenience.

That is a profoundly immoral and anti-freedom contention.
Not quite.

1. There’s no such thing as natural "intellectual property" rights. Copyright and patent law constitute a limited monopoly privilege granted by governmental enforcement, not a protection of rights such as those of the Bill of Rights.

2. The term "intellectual property" is highly misleading, as it conflates copyright and patent law with actual proprietary rights protections. It gives rise to absurdities such as equating copyright infringement with "theft" — a patently ridiculous (pun intended) misuse of the term "theft", as in cases of theft the victim is deprived of a possession, while in cases of copyright infringement the "victim" only has his or her monopoly privilege diluted (while the actual possession, the formulation of an idea restricted by copyright, is still in his or her possession). One does not steal a car by creating a replica of it, after all.

3. While some people certainly oppose copyright and patent law out of some asinine collectivist notion that smart people are obligated to come up with good ideas and give them away, others do so on completely valid free market capitalistic grounds. The GNU General Public License (aka GPL) is an example of the former policy put in action; licenses such as the BSD, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike, and CCD CopyWrite licenses, on the other hand, serve as effective manifestations of the latter policy — where one need not reveal anything but, absent an explicit contractual agreement to the contrary, once you reveal something you can’t take it back or employ force or threat of force to prevent others from using what you’ve conveyed into their possession.

While it’s possible, after reading this QandO blog entry, to interpret Dale Franks’ opinions as being accurate and reasonable, that takes some work. The more obvious and immediate conclusion seems to be that he thinks anyone that takes issue with intellectual property law is a Free Software Foundation commie that wants to put a jackboot heel on the neck of every freedom-loving Real Capitalist, and that we all have a God-given right to jail people for creating backups of software installation CDs. Hopefully, the obvious interpretation isn’t the correct interpretation.
 
Written By: apotheon
URL: http://sob.apotheon.org

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider