> From: Dana Powers > Why? What if object code only was offered for less money?
Let's imagine a post-copyright world. You are a software developer with two potential products you can sell: A) The heretofore unreleased binary of a fantastic program B) The heretofore unreleased source code of a fantastic program Is the source code worth more or less than the binary? I think you'll find the source code worth far more. Bear in mind that the market for copies is not particularly good these days given it's pretty cheap to make them, and there are no SWAT teams to descend upon you should you dare to make any. This means that when you sell your software, you sell your software - you don't sell copies. So, when people are inclined to buy the fruits of your labour, they want the source code - after all, that's the thing that represents your actual work. If the binary is truly fantastic all by itself, well, yes, it's possible that you could sell just the binary simply because someone's so desperate to use the program (but then you have to wonder how they know it's so good? Perhaps they've seen it demoed?). Even so, they will know they can pay well under the odds for just the release of the binary. The fact remains though, you still haven't released the source code. But then that's only right and proper - you haven't been paid for it yet. And you'll get far more money for the source code - so that other's can improve or build upon your work (for their own benefit and sale of labour). What will tend to happen is that because source code is so much more valuable, you will give the binaries away for free in order to promote the software, i.e. so that you can sell the source code for more money. Imagine you modify some published source code on behalf of your employer, and you reckon at a given day rate you'd be paid about $10,000. Now imagine going to your employer and handing them a binary and asking for the full 10k. You'd get the sack in 5 seconds. Let's imagine you do it freelance. A customer wants a program to do X. You produce $10,000 worth of s/w development. You give them a binary and ask for 10k. They'd say "For that much money I expect the source code. For just the binary I'll give you $100.". And remember, that's now two people who have a copy of the binary and full authorisation to sell it again (if there's any market value in such a bespoke program - it would probably cost $100 to privately demonstrate it to even one potential customer who probably wouldn't spend more than $10 anyway). So, let's check this again. You've just done 10k's worth of work, have a customer who is ready to pay you 10k, and you decide to keep the source code secret and only sell the binary for $100. Right. Just where are you going to get more than 10k? You'll very quickly saturate the market trying to flog the binary - it's only known to be useful to the one bespoke customer anyway. And the cost of demonstrating it privately (in order to prevent circulation of the binary) is likely to easily exceed sales revenue. So, you now give the binary away to promote sale of the source code. Perhaps the bespoke program actually has broad market appeal? Eventually you find a cartel of 100 enthusiastic customers who are willing to collectively offer you $10k for the source code (the cartel is fairly good at estimating how much it would cost to fund development - not least because the original bespoke client is also a member of the cartel). I'll be really interested in any business model that can make more money selling the binary in a post-copyright world than selling the source code. > I would > think the absense of copyright would make source code disclosure all > the more unlikely for parties already disposed to keep it secret. If > secrecy reduces the efficacy of competition, we should expect secrecy > to continue in commercial contexts. Without copyright you can't sell software AND keep it secret. OR putting it another way, with copyright+GPL you can keep modifications to your software secret until you've been paid for them. The GPL is not about forcing you to give your source code away for nothing - it is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. The GPL is quite happy about people keeping their software secret. It is only copyright that permits and encourages sale of copies. If you can't sell copies you have to sell software. And if source code is a hundred times more valuable than the binary, you'll give the binary away to promote and demonstrate the source code - with a view to its sale. A new law in a post-copyright world that forbade the publication of binaries without corresponding source code would be counter-productive (and unethical). _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
