It sounds like we both read lesswrong. Good. :) I now understand your notions of "ideas" and "legal fiction", and I obviously agree with you on those points.

It sounds like we both read lesswrong. Good. :) I now understand your notions of "ideas" and "legal fiction", and I obviously agree with you on those points. Now my moral judgement is mainly about freedom. More specifically where you draw the line between the freedoms of different people. Basically, I try to draw a reasonable one, where no one can significantly restrict the freedoms of others. I can exemplify this best with the BSD vs GPL dilemma. Individually, the BSD licence gives total freedom, while the GPL doesn't. So at this first glance, the BSD licence is "more free". However, when you look closer, you see that the only important additional freedom the BSD licence gives you is the ability to proprietarize the licensed software. In other words, the freedom to take away the freedoms (1, 2, and 3) of your customers. Using that freedom is crossing my line, because I mostly care about individual freedom for the masses. Therefore, something that forbids you to cross this line is perfectly OK for me. I would go as far as accepting a law that would forbid proprietary software (private and custom software would still be allowed), at least when it comes to "useful" software. I still hesitate when such software is mostly art (like games). Now, about selling software, well… The way we understand "selling" only applies to scarce stuff, like groceries, or books (the book itself, not it's embedded content). So, the only way to effectively sell software is to make it scarce. Scarce software is necessarily proprietary. So I view the sell of software as an immoral activity. Now I don't mind if you sell the labour of producing the first copy (as is the case with custom software). I don't mind if you charge $much for the privilege of getting a copy from you. I don't mind if you ask for donations. And I certainly don't mind if you sell support or hand holding (your time is scarce stuff). If I use your car (even when you don't need it), it will get… used. Which mean you will be less able to use it in the future. Your car is scarce stuff. For your book, it depends. If I need to "use" your book (piece of paper) to reprint it, obviously that means you will be less able to hold it in the future. Also, even if I can get a copy of your book from you without damaging it in any way, you could still want to keep it secret. That's privacy, and I think it's crucially important. But when the state forbids me to reprint your book (piece of knowledge), of which I have a copy that I have legitimately acquired, then it's a direct restriction of my freedom to do something that doesn't directly restrict your freedom. In this case, the state better have a damn good reason to forbid me to reprint your book (like, otherwise you would write much fewer books). In the end I'm not categorically opposed to IP systems. (I am opposed to the term "IP", because it's confusing.) But I think an IP system must have the burden of proof. It should present strong evidence that its benefits outweigh its costs, which in my opinion are quite high.