Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing
Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. (01)
But I thought that most people on this list disliked the viral nature of
the GPL. As long as we're arguing by analogy, that's like saying
that if you used my free textbook explaining the laws of physics,
then everything you manufacture has to be free. (02)
Of course, I may misunderstand the GPL -- I've only listen with half
an ear when these discussions go by. (03)
And there is a strong case that the world would have been better
off without the profit incentive. We might still be living without
plumbing, but at least we wouldn't be chewing up the ecosystem
at such an alarming rate. (04)
But I think it's fair to say that the world would be a lot different
than it turned out, had such a license been applied to books, as
it is now being applied to software. (05)
I would say that if we basically don't want software development,
because of its capacity for harm, then this is as good a way as any
to prevent. Make it impossible to make a living at it, and certainly
no "dominating force" will ever come into existence. (06)
Of course, there is a lot more that won't come into existence, as
well, because we'll all be making a living selling cars and what not.
We'll code for fun, but that's about it. (07)
I think the answer really lies in the middle ground somewhere.
Unfettered capitalism is a disaster. Companies without conscience
have made that clear. Socialism was equally a disaster. But
well-constrained capitalism, like well-refereed football players,
can have a lot of fun and get a lot done without hurting people. (08)
GPL strikes me as socialistic. MS strikes me as way to unfettered
for anyone's taste. The middle ground strikes me as productive. (09)
Paul Fernhout wrote: (010)
> The point is that we need a system that fights domination prone systems.
> Your system just is another domination prone one -- not a
> meta-domination-unprone one like the GPL. (011)