Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: FREE Software, PD and author compensation
Message-ID: <12523@cup.portal.com>
Date: 12 Dec 88 04:20:12 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 55

In article <5820@thorin.cs.unc.edu> bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) and I
had a discussion on the merits of free software and author compensation.

1. I said that information should be free, to which Mr. Bell responded that
   essentially there would be far less software available if information
   were free.  It ain't necessarily so.

2. I said that software authors should be compensated for their work, and
   Mr. Bell said only in proportion to the quality of the product.  He also
   said that the free market tends to cause this proportionality, implying
   that I was proposing some sort of welfare system or government subsidy.
   I am not.

3. I'm going to quote this, since it is the only way I can see to respond:
   >>The two concepts exist in a constant state of conflict.  The two can
   >>cooperate to create a society where technological progress is double
   >>(a very conservative estimate) what it is today.
   >
   >Again, why?  Because people will work together more?  Again,  you're
   >still free to work with whoever you like.

   Am I free to work with whoever I like?  I submit that I am not.  I work
   for computer company X.  If I work with a person from company Y (the
   enemy, by definition) then I will be fired from company A, and taken to
   court for stealing proprietary information.

   In a free information society, there would be more cooperation for
   precisely this reason.  If the information is not secret, then both X
   and Y benefit from it.  Today, only one of (X, Y) benefits.  This also
   reinforces my 'double progress' assertion.

4. Mr. Bell asserts that buying programs is the best way to compensate
   authors, and asks what my system is.  He quotes the only system he knows
   (shareware) and notes its failure.


     Well, my system is not *that* different from GNU.  In the final phase
of my system, companies pay other companies money for the service of
developing software.  Once the software is developed, however, it passes
into the public domain.
     On the individual user side, users join together into users groups. 
User groups join together into nationwide usergroup hierarchies.  Part of
user group dues go into commisioning software authors to produce programs
for the group.  The group members get to submit ideas for new programs, and
to vote on new programs (and money to write them) on a local, regional, and
national level.
     The better a software author is, the more money he or she can demand
to commision his works - just like an artist.
     In the case of software beyond the capabilities of an individual, the
UGH (User Group Hierarchy) may organize some authors to write a program, or
may hire a software company such as Microsoft to produce the work.
     Similar service-based schemes work in hobby clubs today.


Dan Hankins