Re: [tlug] Bill Gates and the GPL , let the flames begin

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Joe Larabell writes:

 > Exactly... The difference, of course, is that it probably took a
 > lot more time to write the million-line office suite than the
 > 10-line application. And therein lies the rub. The source code
 > itself is not the thing that has value -- that's just bits on a
 > wire or a magnetic patter. What has value is the time that went
 > into creating it.

Sorry, the labor theory of value was exploded in 1871 (only 3 years
after Karl Marx finished elaborating its contradictions).  The source
code (which is not "bits on a wire"!) does have value in itself, as do
the binaries produced by compiling and/or linking it.

What we are arguing about here is the *difference* between the value
of the program in use to users (whether end users or programmers of
derivatives) and the value of the time used to produce the original
program to its developer.  Who gets to keep that surplus?  The goal
of the free software movement is to ensure that those who *did not
produce the software* have an overriding right to it.  Hm ....

 > Isn't that what the GPL is basically about: enforced sharing?

"Enforced sharing"?  Another one for etc/OXYMORONS!  (This is
*precisely* what Curt finds hard to swallow, I suspect.)

True sharing is giving to another so that both can have some.  It's
altruistic.  It's ... well, it's the BSD license.

The GPL is not about sharing.  It's about creating a commons, where
you don't have to be ashamed about grabbing anything you want.  Given
that software is non-rivalrous in use, that's a plausible moral
position.  But it should not be confused with "sharing".