The concept of "free sharing" is quite alien to many capitalists. The
capitalist mindset is that one must ultimately profit from their work.
Some companies spend billions on R&D, but it's expected that that
expendature will result in something to profit from in the future. To a
capitalist, it seems reasonable to assume that if one spends money and
resources on developing software that one should be able to profit from
it (directly).
As we see, capitalist economies are able to support the idea of selling
software, as ethereal as it is, by creating rules that turn it from
"copyable data" into a licensable product.
As they say, it's all in the mind. When people choose to see software
as something tangible and sellable, they will attempt to sell it. They
seem to have succeeded, so far, because they are able to convince others
(customers, etc.) to share their perspective.
There is the common opinion that software development takes WORK, and
when someone wishes to be compensated for their work, they have the
right to ask for that compensation. Licensing software is one way to
get that compensation. On the other hand, hoarding is generally very
counter-productive. Copyright and patent periods are much too long and
detract from the intellectual commons and technological growth more than
they add to it.
There is a fine balance between the socialistic notion of sharing
everything with everyone [see footnote 1] and restricting what you
create so that you can capitalize on it. Keep in mind that the most
successful economies are based on greed, because humans are inherently
greedy. Capitalism turns human greed into something productive by
fostering competition between entities who fight for a greater share of
the same source of wealth. Software, like anything easily copied or
not, can be productized, as long as people are willing to pay for it.
People on this list talk about making software free as if it were a
moral issue. In Capitalism, the only 'morality' is imposed by
government for the purpose of sustaining the free market (i.e.
anti-trust law). All that matters is (a) convincing people that your
product is worth buying and (b) convincing people that you're better
than your competitor. If Free Software is to 'win' in this market, it's
going to have to compete on the same terms as everything else. What
consumers care about is not "can I get the source" but "does it give me
what I want". Thus, offering source code for a commercial product is
just another piece propaganda (albeit often a very good one) or another
bit of added value (but not always). But it is just one piece of what
"sells" the product (even if the price is zero).
(One thing I think would be great is if companies were to open their
closed source after some reasonable period has elapsed, where they have
gotten from it a deserved amount of profit.)
Does information want to be free? No. Some PEOPLE want information to
be free. That's an important distinction that many Free Software
advocates try very hard to bury. Even the idea that technological
advancement is important is not shared by everyone. As much as we are
bothered by someone that closed-minded, we need to face the fact that
there are opinions differing from our own, and that there may be some
logic behind those opinions. The free sharing of ideas is a wonderful
philosophy, but it is not a fundamental law of nature -- it exists only
because we believe in it. If you want someone else to believe in it
too, you have to prove to them that it will improve their life.
And here's an important idea to consider. While it may be provable that
free sharing of ideas helps everyone, as a group, it may be detrimental
to some individuals, such as those who would wish to capitalize on
software as a sellable product. I'm not a worshipper of Ayn Rand, but I
also do not believe in foolish altruism. It goes against human nature
to completely free yourself from the idea of possessing something, which
is why communism and pure socialism fail so miserably. People have a
fundamental need to be able to acquire wealth and possessions (or at
least perceive that they are doing that).
I'm also a proponent of the idea of teaching a man to fish, rather than
just giving one to him. Rather than spoon-feeding people with whatever
information they want to have, it is often helpful to them and to
society in general for people to WORK to acquire knowledge. This makes
them into creative, productive people rather than leaches. Some
information should only be free once you've EARNED it.
[1] Socialism gets a bad rap due to lousy implementation, but not all
socialistic ideas are wrong -- sharing is a good thing! (Don't be a
dumbass and tell me I'm criticizing open source by calling it
'socialistic'. I'm speaking positively about both concepts.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/