Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265361AbTFZDKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265366AbTFZDKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:25 -0400 Received: from hibernia.jakma.org ([212.17.36.87]:17822 "EHLO hibernia.jakma.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265361AbTFZDKX (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:24:00 +0100 (IST) From: Paul Jakma X-X-Sender: paul@fogarty.jakma.org To: David Lang cc: Robert White , Timothy Miller , David Woodhouse , Larry McVoy , Werner Almesberger , Stephan von Krawczynski , , Subject: RE: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-NSA: iraq saddam hammas hisballah rabin ayatollah korea vietnam revolt mustard gas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2076 Lines: 48 On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, David Lang wrote: > Robert, nobody is disagreeing with this part of the discussion, that I > hear Larry saying is that this process isn't producing innovations, it is > almost exclusivly producing copies. Does that claim stand up though? If you work from Robert White's economic premise and hence include all software that was 'innovated' through backing of resources where the commercial sale of that software was not the reason for the allocation of those resources (ie the same economic conditions under which 'free software' is developed), and then examine Larry's claim, does it hold up? I'd say it doesnt. the fact that we can have this discussion via electronic email over an internet should demonstrate that fact surely? One could even include the development of Unix as one of those innovations -> AT&T were precluded from selling software. that later on other companies were able to commercialise what was originally free software does not diminish that its original development took place under conditions where it had no direct commercial value, at least not from sale of the software itself. I do think is Larry correct though in that the commercial model is the most attractive model for development, under the /current/ legislative conditions -> ie artificial monopoly via copyright law. I wouldnt think its the best model though. If there were no copyright law, and source had to be provided to software, software development would still be funded. Its just its funding would have to be justified by means other than "we can sell it". Just because it could not be sold would not though mean that funding would not be available. regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: Eureka! -- Archimedes - 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/