3 ms·

That would make perfect sense if software grew on trees. In the real world in which we live, people have to work hard to create new things. There is no magic s

That would make perfect sense if software grew on trees. In the real world in which we live, people have to work hard to create new things. There is no magic software fairy. Software is not a right like air, water or food or speech. Remember, the world does not owe you free software. ("free" as in "free beer")

teddyh 13y ago
Well, first, there are those who argue (although I’m not sure they are right) that all software the world would need would be written by people in their spare time; even many large complex software pieces have been made this way. I’m not sure if this will work, though. However, you are implying something more insidious: That one must forbid people to share software in order to make money writing it. This is obviously false, with many counterexamples. In particular, there is a company which is mostly writing the Gnu ADA compiler which is reportedly making money hand over fist. If one were to assume that this (or variants of it) is possible in all fields of software, then there is no good excuse for forbidding sharing of software, which does some demonstrable harm.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Let us talk when things like Google search and Watson are built from scratch for free. If sharing the source code for Google does no harm, why have they not done it? Another radical example: Github. Why is the source for Github not open or free? Why are they not sharing that with us? Surely a company so invested in open (and to a large extent free) software must know better right?
  - teddyh 13y ago
    I would argue that some free software projects can be compared to Google search and Watson. Sharing the source to Google would be better for society, but a bit bad for Google, and since Google decides, they are deciding not to. The same goes for Github. It’s the collective action problem.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      You have good intentions that are not realistic. Your model would work if everyone is selfless, honest and moral. Everyone has to be a perfect moral machine. More concretely: free software always mimics commercial software badly after someone takes risk building it. No free software is comparable to Google or Watson in both technical capability and market results. They need 100s to 1000s of PhDs working full time. These PhDs have already slaved off in academia for years. If software should not be treated as property, nothing else should be!
      - teddyh 13y ago
        I think you are projecting; what is my "model"? Why would it fail? > free software always mimics commercial software badly One could argue against this, but let’s assume that it is true. Does this have anything to do with the necessity of allowing software makers to forbid the sharing of software? Are you arguing that it is impossible to make money with software which is not forbidden to share, when lots of people are doing it today? Let’s say the world stopped allowing ideas and other non-rivalrous goods to be considered property. Would the world still need software? Yes. Would the world still need people to write software? Yes. Would the world be willing to pay people to write software they need? Obviously yes.
        cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        >One could argue against this, but let’s assume that it is true. Hmm. It is true. Which free software are people using to search more than Google search? Which free software won Jeopardy? > Are you arguing that it is impossible to make money with software which is not forbidden to share, when lots of people are doing it today? I never said that. But forcing people to give up their software would result in a bleak Soviet like future for all of us. >Let’s say the world stopped allowing ideas and other non-rivalrous goods to be considered property. Then why should anything else be considered property? Are you not denying my right to enjoy land that you claim to own?
        13y ago

teddyh 13y ago

Well, first, there are those who argue (although I’m not sure they are right) that all software the world would need would be written by people in their spare time; even many large complex software pieces have been made this way. I’m not sure if this will work, though. However, you are implying something more insidious: That one must forbid people to share software in order to make money writing it. This is obviously false, with many counterexamples. In particular, there is a company which is mostly writing the Gnu ADA compiler which is reportedly making money hand over fist. If one were to assume that this (or variants of it) is possible in all fields of software, then there is no good excuse for forbidding sharing of software, which does some demonstrable harm.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Let us talk when things like Google search and Watson are built from scratch for free. If sharing the source code for Google does no harm, why have they not done it? Another radical example: Github. Why is the source for Github not open or free? Why are they not sharing that with us? Surely a company so invested in open (and to a large extent free) software must know better right?
- teddyh 13y ago
  I would argue that some free software projects can be compared to Google search and Watson. Sharing the source to Google would be better for society, but a bit bad for Google, and since Google decides, they are deciding not to. The same goes for Github. It’s the collective action problem.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    You have good intentions that are not realistic. Your model would work if everyone is selfless, honest and moral. Everyone has to be a perfect moral machine. More concretely: free software always mimics commercial software badly after someone takes risk building it. No free software is comparable to Google or Watson in both technical capability and market results. They need 100s to 1000s of PhDs working full time. These PhDs have already slaved off in academia for years. If software should not be treated as property, nothing else should be!
    - teddyh 13y ago
      I think you are projecting; what is my "model"? Why would it fail? > free software always mimics commercial software badly One could argue against this, but let’s assume that it is true. Does this have anything to do with the necessity of allowing software makers to forbid the sharing of software? Are you arguing that it is impossible to make money with software which is not forbidden to share, when lots of people are doing it today? Let’s say the world stopped allowing ideas and other non-rivalrous goods to be considered property. Would the world still need software? Yes. Would the world still need people to write software? Yes. Would the world be willing to pay people to write software they need? Obviously yes.
      - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        >One could argue against this, but let’s assume that it is true. Hmm. It is true. Which free software are people using to search more than Google search? Which free software won Jeopardy? > Are you arguing that it is impossible to make money with software which is not forbidden to share, when lots of people are doing it today? I never said that. But forcing people to give up their software would result in a bleak Soviet like future for all of us. >Let’s say the world stopped allowing ideas and other non-rivalrous goods to be considered property. Then why should anything else be considered property? Are you not denying my right to enjoy land that you claim to own?
        13y ago