I agree with Martin. "Copyright" as used in production of proprietary software is a legal mechanism for mass production of a fiat currency with little or no intrinsic value. The copyright holder then has a way to print money. "Copyleft" was designed to use our legal system to prevent accumulation of that economic power and instead treat software as "knowledge". It's easy to argue that knowledge freely shared has a much more positive benefit than hoarding. No matter how hard and expensive it is to produce the next great software improvement, it is best done openly. Copyleft does level the playing field and is the embodiment of sharing. A lot of people don't like a level playing field and don't like sharing, despite what they learned in kindergarten.
Assertion: All software can't be free. Response: Why not? Please provide an example. In the proprietary v. public debate, I can remember one example: tax software as supposedly a thing that could not be done by the 'hobbyist'. But that argument ignores the fact that the tax collector (the government) has a very natural interest in producing such software. They could easily produce GPL tax filing software. They don't because H&R Block doesn't want user freedom, but rather protection of their "proprietary" Intellectual Property rights. Q. How do you make money when the software is free? A. How do lawyers get paid so much when laws are "free"? I run a business that gets paid for REAL work recommending, installing, customizing free software to fit a particular need and training people how to use it. Part of my time invariably ends up adding to the body of knowledge that is free software (like fixing bugs, adding new features, writing new software etc.). _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
