Sorry to split up my response like this, but there are so many different ideas expressed here that it was hard for me to consolidate:
On 2/28/07, Crosbie Fitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. As a general point, what you call "worth" is terribly ambiguous. Is it what a consumer would be willing to pay? What a producer would be willing to sell for? What a willing producer and consumer would actually exchange for? <snip /> > 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. A producer sells only object code because she finds that more people will come back for improvements and support as she is the only one with the source code. This additional revenue is found to be greater than the revenue she would have earned had she sold software. Seems very reasonable to me. > > 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. You can keep source code secret. The process of deriving source from object code is difficult at best. This can be made more difficult if the compiler is designed to do so. > 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. Hmmm. The GPL explicitly requires a "no charge license." See clause 2(b). http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt Nonetheless, the GPL quite clearly uses copyright to require source code disclosure (See clause 3). Compare to a BSD-style license, which does not. > 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. I don't deny that some producers may find this to be the optimal strategy. But all? My more general point is that without solid theoretical or empirical grounding, we really have no clue what mix of freedom and protection would lead to maximum consumer welfare. Everything is a trade off between access and production, and it is just as hard for me to believe that no protection is optimal as it is that all protection is. Dana _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
