Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software, development & copyrights
Message-ID: <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 89 06:09:35 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5401@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 157

In article <5401@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<In article <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
<> Peter, you have this habit of reading straw men into what other people
<> write, without regarding what they actually wrote.
<
<Funny, I have the same impression about you.

Hmm. Maybe we should both take more care.

<I know. I have not in any way misrepresented your position. I just do not
<believe this statement to be factual. I have tried to explain that there
<are many ways in which software can be part of a product, without being
<explicitly "sold". A company that had to give the source to this software
<away is at a competitive disadvantage.

I am aware of this. I tried to explain that 1) the number included
this set is much smaller than you think, and 2) in many cases, it
doesn't make any difference.

<Even if I grant you your point, I think I can demonstrate that it is not
<relevant. There is a ghenuine need for the products that I speak of. Such
<products as 747s, passenger cars, microwave ovens, and energy management
<systems are necessary. To compete effectively if you manufacture these
<products you need to protect the source to your embedded software.

Ok. Let's take an example I'm familiar with (as opposed to Ferranti,
which I'm not), and consider passenger cars. A company produces those,
and charges some extra amount for whatever software is on board. Now,
assume they make the source code to that software available. Two
things happen: 1) those people who sell roms to change the performance
now have an easier job, and can charge marginally less for the roms.
These means that the cost of the better-tuned (in the sense of the
purchaser) is lower, so that people can buy more of the tweaked proms.
In fact, there will certainly be some people that will be the car at
the new price-performance position that wouldn't have before, so the
manufacturer sells more cars. 2) backyard mechanics have an easier
time tweaking the proms. These means they can get to the performance
they want by doing that instead of buying more hardware. Net result is
the same as above. However, by making these peoples jobs easier,
you've also made it easier for them to do lots of other things - like
create cars that don't pass emissions, or that more power than their
suspension will handle. But any time you give people more tools,
you're giving them more ways to hurt themselves. Not being a fan of
big brother, I don't consider that sufficient reason to keep them from
the tools.

So how does giving away sources hurt these people? Some of them even
socket the proms and make them accessible from the passenger
compartment.

As a matter of fact, the autombile industry provides a good example of
the kind of atmosphere that the FSF is trying to create. In 1915, the
major players in the US auto industry agreed that all patents (with a
few minor exceptions) could be used freely one year after the patent
was issued. This agreement was renewed until 1955. 

Compare that with the current software industry, where lawyers are
as important as programmers, and tend to make more money. Compare the
growth rate of the auto industry from then (a year after Ford
introduced the assembly line, and tried to make cars affordable to
everyone) to the history of the personal computer industry after the
introductdion of the Apple (the closest analogy I can come up with -
maybe the IBM PC would be better).

Now, which would you rather have been in?

<Therefore there are cases where hoarding software is necessary.

If you prefixed that with "to maximize profits," I'd agree. However, I
don't think you've demonstrated a need other than that. That's not
sufficient.

<Most of the software in the world is written in Cobol on IBM mainframes and
<minicomputers. The vast majority of this code is wasted and duplicated
<effort, even if it is PD. Hardly a shining example for the GNU side.

It's nota good example. That's one reason that GNU makes sure you give
away source if you do any distribution at all - to avoid duplication of
effort. Go see the other thread.

I'd argue about that figure, though. Most _programmers_ are working in
that slot. But things like the NASA space tracking system, it's
shuttle simulator, the NAS gas flow code, etc aren't written in COBOL,
and don't run on IBM mainframes. I claim that the total of code in
those projects and similar things is far greater than the IBM shops
code.

<> <> It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society,
<
<> <When a man comes up to you with the intent of doing you good, run the other
<> <way.
<
<> Right. After all, we wouldn't _ever_ want to benefit by somebody
<> else's good will, would we?
<
<Your education is lacking. That is a paraphrase of a relatively famous quote.
<My education is, to a lesser extent, lacking... I can't recall who said it.

Failure to mention recognition is not failure to recognize.  I
recognized it as a paraphrase. So I responded with one of my own,
expecting you to recognize mine. I just didn't see any reason to
mention it.

<The intent of the quote is
<that someone else's idea of what is good for you may not actually match either
<what is really good for you... or even your idea.

Hmm - we may have different paraphrases in mind. The intent of the one
I recall is echoed in the one I quoted:

<> That's why you don't trust people's good will, you trust their
<> self-interest.
<
<Wonderful. A reasonable, meaningful statement. One that I can accept.

The actual quote is:

	Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one.
	Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

<> It works better. And you yourself pointed out that
<> Stallman's self-interest is in creating a programmers utopia.
<
<His idea of a programmer's utopia, where all his good buddies from the
<MIT AI lab are back working on cool software in the MIT AI lab, making just
<enough to get along so they can keep working on cool software.
<
<Not my idea of a programmer's utopia.

Not his idea, either. He doesn't want everyone back at the MIT AI lab;
he wants them to act like all those people did, and share programs
freely with each other, so everybody gains.

<Programmers are also people. We have families and expenses and mundane
<ambitions. Some of us would like to own our own houses in reasonably nice
<parts of town. Programming is not an end in and of itself.

And now, you're making the same mistake that triggered the other
thread. You're acting like hoarding software is the only way to make
money out of programming. This just isn't so.

To consider the other side of self-interest, the stated self-interest
of software hoarders is to make as much money for themselves as
possible. Some of us want to raise a family and spend time with them,
use the things we pay property tax on, and in general enjoy life.
Making money is no more an end in itself than programming is.

Now, given the choice between someone who wants to put as many of your
dollars in their pockets as they can, and someone who wants to make
everyone be nice to each other and share, which would you choose?

	<mike
--
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven			Mike Meyer
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben;				mwm@berkeley.edu
Und aller-mumsige Burggoven				ucbvax!mwm
Die mohmem Rath' ausgraben.				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET