4 ms·

> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. Interesting way to look at it. If you write a piece of software should you only get a single sale and the

> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. Interesting way to look at it. If you write a piece of software should you only get a single sale and then it be free for use by the entire world?

yjk 2y ago
Proponents of free software would agree. In addition, from the programmer's point of view this is usually how things work (unless they own the startup, the equivalent of self-publishing). And for most products that actively gain new users, there is continuous work being put into adding new features and maintenance. So in my mind, this is not a perfect analogy.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
>> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. > Interesting way to look at it. If you write a piece of software should you only get a single sale and then it be free for use by the entire world? I'll restore the context you omitted. >> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. >> Past that requires a bargain with the public. After I write code, my client pays me as agreed and I have received 100% of what I am entitled to. That's how labor and wages work. Someone else can write the same code and sell that labor to their clients and get the same result. This is good and holy and what is right with the world. If I want to write code and deny every other person possible their right to develop and deploy that tool - Ok, well, there's a good chance I can't. The plain and obvious nature of computer instructions puts a lot of healthy limits on whether code can be copyrighted. Not enough and like everything tied to copyright it's a convoluted mess of industry-built pitfalls. But say I work all that out. If I want to force the public to gift me the protection I get - by denying the public their natural right - I have to enter into a bargain with the public. As far as it relies on purchased copyright law, it will be a corrupt bargain. But the bargain does have to exist.

yjk 2y ago

Proponents of free software would agree. In addition, from the programmer's point of view this is usually how things work (unless they own the startup, the equivalent of self-publishing). And for most products that actively gain new users, there is continuous work being put into adding new features and maintenance. So in my mind, this is not a perfect analogy.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

>> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. > Interesting way to look at it. If you write a piece of software should you only get a single sale and then it be free for use by the entire world? I'll restore the context you omitted. >> Everyone deserves to get paid for their work. Once. >> Past that requires a bargain with the public. After I write code, my client pays me as agreed and I have received 100% of what I am entitled to. That's how labor and wages work. Someone else can write the same code and sell that labor to their clients and get the same result. This is good and holy and what is right with the world. If I want to write code and deny every other person possible their right to develop and deploy that tool - Ok, well, there's a good chance I can't. The plain and obvious nature of computer instructions puts a lot of healthy limits on whether code can be copyrighted. Not enough and like everything tied to copyright it's a convoluted mess of industry-built pitfalls. But say I work all that out. If I want to force the public to gift me the protection I get - by denying the public their natural right - I have to enter into a bargain with the public. As far as it relies on purchased copyright law, it will be a corrupt bargain. But the bargain does have to exist.