RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)

Petro wrote:
> >> Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their
> >> API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> >You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to 
> >do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require 
> >= Force != Free[dom]
> 
> Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You 
> don't include your source code, we won't buy it".

*Require* per say is a bad term for the use of economic power. But the
market didn't "require" Microsoft to do so (see Microsoft's financial
statements), so why should the government step in and force something
that is contrary to the market?

The rest of Jim's sentence read "we wouldn't be spending all this effort
and money on the current [Department of Justice] proceedings."

Which tells me that require means certain segments of the market telling
Microsoft you will do this or we will fuck you over with the borrowcrats
we own, which is exactly what has happened. The elements lacked
sufficient economic power to sway Microsoft, and they lacked sufficient
political power until they ganged up together. A loose coalition to gain
via use of DOJ antitrust force what they good not gain in a free market.
That is political power, not economic.
What is rather ironic is that the same Antitrust laws they are trying to
bash Microsoft with are what prevented them from forming an economic
(instead of under-the-table political) coalition that could have made
Microsoft change its practices without resorting to non-free-market
forces.

	Matt

Petro writes:
[ . . . ]
 > 	Aren't there certain departments/divisions in the governement that
 > only accept electronic files if they are in "word" format? (i.e. the DoD,
 > but I don't have a site for that, so I could be mistaken).
 > 
 > 	I know that I've never seen a Military Computer (desktop kind) that
 > wasn't a Wintel/Dos machjne (talking general purpose computer here, not a
 > targeting machine etc.)
 > 
 > 	Sell a couple hundered thousand units to the Feds, and that is a
 > considerable dent in the "level playing field" of the free market.

     Check the archives!  (I really enjoyed typing that.)  A few
months ago in a thread initiated by, I believe, Dr. Hun, I suggested
that the best way for the government to break the alleged Microsoft
monopoly would be to stop buying their products.

     Given that free alternatives are available, our tax dollars
shouldn't be wasted on expensive software.  The fact that the free
software is technically superior is icing on the cake.

Regards,

pjm

At 5:25 PM -0500 9/30/98, Matthew James Gering wrote:
>Petro wrote:
>> >> Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their
>> >> API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to
>> >do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require
>> >= Force != Free[dom]
>>
>> Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You
>> don't include your source code, we won't buy it".
>
>*Require* per say is a bad term for the use of economic power. But the
>market didn't "require" Microsoft to do so (see Microsoft's financial
>statements), so why should the government step in and force something
>that is contrary to the market?

	I never said they should, however in this case I will make the
arguement that the Feds DID have something to do with creating the
Jaggernaut called M$, and that they could also fix Billys little redmond
wagon without a court case shoud they wish.

	Again, for those on the list who can't read clearly, I DON'T THINK
THE DOJ SUIT IS PROPER, I am against it.

	Of course that is true of most government "actions".

>The rest of Jim's sentence read "we wouldn't be spending all this effort
>and money on the current [Department of Justice] proceedings."
>
>Which tells me that require means certain segments of the market telling
>Microsoft you will do this or we will fuck you over with the borrowcrats
>we own, which is exactly what has happened. The elements lacked
>sufficient economic power to sway Microsoft, and they lacked sufficient
>political power until they ganged up together. A loose coalition to gain
>via use of DOJ antitrust force what they good not gain in a free market.
>That is political power, not economic.
>What is rather ironic is that the same Antitrust laws they are trying to
>bash Microsoft with are what prevented them from forming an economic
>(instead of under-the-table political) coalition that could have made
>Microsoft change its practices without resorting to non-free-market
>forces.

	Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't almost all Federally owned
desktop computers PCs?

	Aren't there certain departments/divisions in the governement that
only accept electronic files if they are in "word" format? (i.e. the DoD,
but I don't have a site for that, so I could be mistaken).

	I know that I've never seen a Military Computer (desktop kind) that
wasn't a Wintel/Dos machjne (talking general purpose computer here, not a
targeting machine etc.)

	Sell a couple hundered thousand units to the Feds, and that is a
considerable dent in the "level playing field" of the free market.
--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

Christopher Petro writes:
> 	I never said they should, however in this case I will make the
> arguement that the Feds DID have something to do with creating the
> Jaggernaut called M$, and that they could also fix Billys little redmond
> wagon without a court case shoud they wish.

On the Feds buying M$ software (no big deal ... if it suits them let
them buy it).

The real subsidy of M$ and any software vendor is the copyright,
patent, and license enforcement mechanism provided by the government.

Don't forget that copyright enforcement boils down to thugs with guns
coming to lock you up.

In a crypto-anarchic society concepts such as copyright, license and
patents have little meaning because the obvious statement of reality
is that once you have released something to another individual, you
lose all control over it.

With strong anonymity, ecash and so on, even things like GNU, patents,
export controls whatever can be swept away for individuals, and for
anonymous companies.  GNU license?  No problem, just ignore the
license.  Copright?  No problem just ignore the copyright notices,
strip them off.  Patents?  Ignore them to.

If people still buy software, or support contracts from anonymous
companies who ignore patents, well that is the market deciding what it
thinks of copyright.

Judging by the state of software-piracy with PC software with 80-90%+
piracy rates, the market is already pretty much ok with ignoring
copyright, and would be happy to have no copyrights.

The bounty scheme, support contracts are much closer to the natural
schelling points in a free society than "enforcement" of bit flow, and
ideas.

FSF is the first wave.

Adam