3 ms·

What about the freedom of organisations and individuals to profit from their software-writing efforts? 'Freedom is good' sounds like a tautology, but freedom t

What about the freedom of organisations and individuals to profit from their software-writing efforts? 'Freedom is good' sounds like a tautology, but freedom to do what, or freedom from what? Some freedoms are a good thing for people to have, others not (e.g. freedom to escape the law (assuming the law is good)). For RMS, the freedom of the many to use, see, modify and distribute code always trumps the freedom of the individual person or organisation to keep their code secret and restricted to the end of making money for themselves. Unfortunately, I get the impression that RMS tries to equate 'freedom' with 'the freedoms RMS is in favour of'. But there are other freedoms which one can argue for, and which conflict with RMS's preferred freedoms. (Which he does argue for, but my point is that there are good arguments for other views too.)

davidw 18y ago
IP is basically one solution to the problem of provisioning 'public goods', which is what software would be without artificial restrictions, as it's definitely non rivalrous, and difficult to 'exclude'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions It is, however, very much an artificial construct, created and enforced by the government with the intention of striking a balance that benefits consumers by encouraging producers. So, while I disagree with RMS, I don't know that I would call intellectual property a very natural 'freedom'. More than anything, it's a compromise that has worked reasonably well until now, with some obvious defects (software patents).
omouse 18y ago
>For RMS, the freedom of the many to use, see, modify and distribute code always trumps the freedom of the individual person or organisation to keep their code secret and restricted to the end of making money for themselves. If you don't want your code to be free as in free speech, use a different license and keep it to yourself. You have the freedom to do that. You can make money off of free software by the way. It may seem tougher to do, but it's still possible.

davidw 18y ago

IP is basically one solution to the problem of provisioning 'public goods', which is what software would be without artificial restrictions, as it's definitely non rivalrous, and difficult to 'exclude'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions It is, however, very much an artificial construct, created and enforced by the government with the intention of striking a balance that benefits consumers by encouraging producers. So, while I disagree with RMS, I don't know that I would call intellectual property a very natural 'freedom'. More than anything, it's a compromise that has worked reasonably well until now, with some obvious defects (software patents).

omouse 18y ago

>For RMS, the freedom of the many to use, see, modify and distribute code always trumps the freedom of the individual person or organisation to keep their code secret and restricted to the end of making money for themselves. If you don't want your code to be free as in free speech, use a different license and keep it to yourself. You have the freedom to do that. You can make money off of free software by the way. It may seem tougher to do, but it's still possible.