[comp.misc] New Communicational Morality

foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) (04/03/89)

During its General Assembly in september 1988, the International Academy
of Sciences of San Marino (AIS) decided to stimulate discussion about copyright
on software and printed material.  In the meantime, Helmar Frank 
has published a proposal which (among other things) suggests that software
is no "ware" in the ordinary sense of the word, and that therefore any copyright
should be abolished.

Frank's theses appeared in the proceedings of the AIS conference held at
Eupen (Belgium) in december 1988, titled "Kommunikation -- mit Rechnern, durch
Rechner, ohne Rechner" (German, summaries in French and ILo), published by
"Verlag Modernes Lernen".  I have tried to translate the summary and
post it below.

If there are reactions (e-mail to me -- gladly in German), I shall forward
them to Helmar Frank (currently no e-mail) and also summarize on the net.
BTW, can anyone think of a more specific newsgroup this might go into?
What about soc.communic.impact or soc.software.copyright? :-)

Detailed reactions are welcome, but if anybody simply wishes to express
approval or disapproval, he/she is free to award the following three
maxims each a mark between -3 (full disapproval) and +3 (full consent).
(Integer marks, please, anything else will be rounded!)

Reinhard Foessmeier, Technische Universitaet Muenchen
<foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perspectives of a New Communicational Morality for the Cybernetical Era
			Helmar Frank

Due to progress in cybernetical technology, information is piling up
and its exchange and processing is speeding up to a such degree that the
principles of traditional communicational morality are shaking.  Three
maxims of a new communicational morality seem to be more adequate for the
cybernetical era.

1. In the field of art and technology, not only the pollution of the natural
   (material) environment must be fought but also -- and with the same effort
   -- the pollution of the cultural (informational) environment. In a nutshell:
   Culture conservation is as important as nature conservation.
   ["Maxim of rejection of informational pollution"]

2. The development of international scientific communication with the goal of
   future advances is more important than short-sighted, frantic acceleration
   of present advances in any special branch.  In a nutshell:  Advances for
   future communication are more important than communication of present
   advances.  ["Maxim of the priority of the communication process"]

3. The cultural community of the International Language, conscious that to
   commun-icate means to "make common", should be a pioneer on the road to
   informational commun-ism and a model to promote abolition of the anti-
   cultural laws based on the superstition of "soft-ware". In a nutshell:
   Copyright is a superstition hostile to civilization.  ["Maxim of
   non-commercialization of culture"]

In september 1988 the AIS decided at San Marino to open an international
discussion about a new communicational morality.  The above maxims are to
be considered as a contribution to this discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen |        "Matena horo
foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de |  estas plena je kapdoloro"
   [ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ]             |         (Zamenhof)

jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/05/89)

Perspectives of a New Communicational Morality for the Cybernetical Era
			Helmar Frank

1. In the field of art and technology, not only the pollution of the natural
   (material) environment must be fought but also -- and with the same effort
   -- the pollution of the cultural (informational) environment. In a nutshell:
   Culture conservation is as important as nature conservation.
   ["Maxim of rejection of informational pollution"]

Whoa!  Bookburning time again!  Big Brother is going to protect
us against things we don't need to and shouldn't -- in *his*
opinion, of course -- know.  

Aside from being authoritarian and elitist (Lyndon LaRouche rides
again!), this is sheer sophistry.  Material pollution violates
people's rights, in that there is no choice involved.  But every
individual has the option of whether to watch TV, switch on the
radio, buy any given publication.  To be perfectly -- well,
"frank", about it, Just Say No To Censorship. 


2. The development of international scientific communication with the goal of
   future advances is more important than short-sighted, frantic acceleration
   of present advances in any special branch.  In a nutshell:  Advances for
   future communication are more important than communication of present
   advances.  ["Maxim of the priority of the communication process"]

I'm not convinced the two are incompatible -- but if they are,
who decides which is more important?  And how is that enforced?


3. The cultural community of the International Language, conscious that to
   commun-icate means to "make common", should be a pioneer on the road to
   informational commun-ism and a model to promote abolition of the anti-
   cultural laws based on the superstition of "soft-ware". In a nutshell:
   Copyright is a superstition hostile to civilization.  ["Maxim of
   non-commercialization of culture"]

Several thoughts here.  First: *again*, we have to listen to the
old mind/body dichotomy crap?  That is, in this case, once again
the nonsense that there's a difference between intellectual
property and material property?  That while people have a right
to the fruits of their manual labor, they don't have a right to
the fruits of their mental labor?

Second, note that Numbers 1 and 3 seem to be contradictory.
First, Datafuhrer Frank wants to protect us from too much
information for our poor little untermenschen minds to handle --
and then, supposedly. he wants to lower what he sees as 
barriers to the spread of information.  I am reminded of 
the question posed by the King of Siam in The King 
And I ... "If I have allies to protect me, might they 
not protect me out of everything I own?"

Third, eliminating copy rights (word broken into its components
deliberately) would reduce the introduction of new software.
Rational folks don't like being cows to be milked for the
glasses of others, and if they can't control their products, 
they won't produce.  But perhaps Datafuhrer Frank wants a
reduction in new software.  After all, he might think too 
much progress isn't good for us untermenschen!

Fourth - uh, is Datafuhrer Frank trying to tell us that material
communism has worked well enough to be a role model that
the information sciences should adopt?  If so, what planet
is he living on?  Material communism has meant poverty,
oligarchy, mass murder, brutal repression -- the list goes
on.  Is *that* what he wants the software field to emulate?

I'll defend Herr Frank's right to support authoritarian
elitism.  But count on me to oppose any attempts to
implement it.



>In september 1988 the AIS decided at San Marino to open an international
>discussion about a new communicational morality.  The above maxims are to
>be considered as a contribution to this discussion.

I hope anyone who gets a chance to contribute to this "international
discussion" points out that Datafuhrer Frank's positions do not
represent a "new communicational morality", but a very old, very
tired immorality: Big Brother Knows Best -- and I hope contributors
will work against such abominations.


Para un Tejas Libre,


Jeff Daiell



-- 
  If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
  Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.

                                   -- Don Paarlberg

dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (04/06/89)

In article <3687@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>Fourth - uh, is Datafuhrer Frank trying to tell us that material
>communism has worked well enough to be a role model that
>the information sciences should adopt?  If so, what planet
>is he living on?  Material communism has meant poverty,
>oligarchy, mass murder, brutal repression -- the list goes
>on.  Is *that* what he wants the software field to emulate?
>
>Jeff Daiell

By "material communism" it is not clear what you talking about.  The
Soviet Union does not have a communist economy and never did (except
possibly during "War-Communism" during the Civil War.  It claims to
have a socialist economy but even that is debatable.  Communism is
supposed to mean (according to Karl Marx) "from each according to his
ability and to each according to his needs".  The USSR has not
followed such a policy and vehemently denies that it follows such a
communist policy.  The U.S. with it's welfare system etc. to provide for
peoples "needs" is perhaps closer to a Marx's definition of Communism
than is the USSR which has no welfare benefits (but today has many
people unemployed as a result of perestroika).

True Communism seems to exist mainly in religious communes where it has
not usually meant poverty, mass murder (exception: the one in Central
America) etc.  They have, however, been guilty of oligarchy as you
state.  So has the USSR, but in terms of poverty, the USSR has make more
progress since say 1920 than has the US.  I think that the jury is
still out regarding the comparative advantages of socialism, communism,
and capitalism.

Now back to software copyright.  I think the philosophy expressed by a
Soviet writer some years ago in explaining the copyright laws of the 
Soviet Republics is a good one.  (Each of the 15 "Repulbics" has its
own laws).  The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance
the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software.  I think
that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is
important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no
cost at all).

Software has all the attributes of a free good since the marginal cost
of making another copy is next to nothing.  However, to qualify for a
free good it should also be of general usefulness.  Thus I would
propose that the United Nations (or another international organization)
pay for the development of general purpose free software (editors,
compilers, spread sheets etc.).  Taxes could be levied on computer
equipment to help pay for this (but the UN has no such authority at
present).  They could also evaluate the existing free software and plan
improvements to it.  To save development costs, they could get students
to work on it as class projects as well as recruit other volunteers.

The copyright laws on software need to be changed.  First, a copyright
holder should have the duty to make source code (adequately commented)
available to all who request it.  Large economies will accrue if others
can reuse some of this code, but not for producing a similar piece of
software.  You may claim that if I write a program and others use it
freely in other applications, then I am being hurt.  But I am being
greatly benefited by having the right to put into my programs any of
the huge pool of source code which would be available.

				David S. Lawyer

wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (04/07/89)

I tried to reply (e-mail) to this, but it bounced ... twice.
So I decided to post it.  Not interested?  Then hit _n_, now.



Here goes ...

In article <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> you write:
)
) [Your introduction deleted ... I will respond to Mr. Frank's points]
)
)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
)Perspectives of a New Communicational Morality for the Cybernetical Era
)			Helmar Frank
)
)Due to progress in cybernetical technology, information is piling up
)and its exchange and processing is speeding up to a such degree that the
)principles of traditional communicational morality are shaking.  Three
)maxims of a new communicational morality seem to be more adequate for the
)cybernetical era.
)
)1. In the field of art and technology, not only the pollution of the natural
)   (material) environment must be fought but also -- and with the same effort
)   -- the pollution of the cultural (informational) environment. In a nutshell:
)   Culture conservation is as important as nature conservation.
)   ["Maxim of rejection of informational pollution"]

-3

Please define exactly which pieces of "culture" you would reject,
your rejection criteria, the mechanism for suppression, and the
source of your authority for doing so.

While I can agree that cultural conservation is a desirable goal, I 
believe that the problem here is that there is no accounting for
taste.  In other words, let us say that I think that Jackson 
Pollock is a cultural "polluter" (i.e. say that I think his art is 
garbage).  Shall I then proscribe any museum from purchasing his 
"art?"  What gives me the authority to act in such a fashion?  
How much _force_ should I use to enforce my concept of culture on 
others?  Note that in the US such action is illegal (unconstitutional).

I reject television as a cultural polluter *in my own house* -- I
have no right to _force_ you to stop watching television.  I can
only argue for you to decide to eliminate television viewing from your 
daily activities.

Contemporary culture is a (normal?) distribution of the population
plotted against the continuum of cultural options.  You desire to
restrict the cultural options.  This will at best skew the curve
and at worst result in violent opposition.

In a nutshell:  I will agree only if _I_ get to decide what 
                is "pollution." ;-)

)
)2. The development of international scientific communication with the goal of
)   future advances is more important than short-sighted, frantic acceleration
)   of present advances in any special branch.  In a nutshell:  Advances for
)   future communication are more important than communication of present
)   advances.  ["Maxim of the priority of the communication process"]

-3

To promote the priority of communication ignores the _quality_ of the 
communication.  Some ideas about the communication process (these
maxims, for example) are worth considerably less than _any_ communication
about, say, cold fusion.  So to prioritize on the basis of purported
subject matter is short-sighted, foolish, and doomed to failure.

In a nutshell: The more rapid the communication, the less time there is
               for thought -- result: information inflation (each piece
               of information is worth less and less).

)
)3. The cultural community of the International Language, conscious that to
)   commun-icate means to "make common", should be a pioneer on the road to
)   informational commun-ism and a model to promote abolition of the anti-
)   cultural laws based on the superstition of "soft-ware". In a nutshell:
)   Copyright is a superstition hostile to civilization.  ["Maxim of
)   non-commercialization of culture"]
)

-3

Commun-icate means to make common -- between the sender and his intended
receiver, not necessarily to make common among all people (unless such is 
the intent of the _sender_).  This is a really _obvious_ point.  I suggest 
you read _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand.  You should understand that (1) you 
cannot _force_ people to be creative, (2) you cannot communicate (make 
common) the _ability_ to be creative, and (3) any attempt to wrest the 
intellectual property (soft-ware for example) from those who _are_ creative 
to benefit those who are _not_ creative will result in a general lack of 
creativity in the culture (since you punish creativity and reward 
intellectual sloth).  Ask the Soviet Union how well this concept works
in, say, agriculture.  This is just another example of people who think 
it is their right to take by force that which they cannot themselves 
produce.  It is the "culture" of an information-age Ghengis Khan.  

Note that this maxim violates the second maxim, since you hereby seek to 
destroy the incentives for producing software.  Yes, some people will 
produce software just 'cause they like to, but some people _won't_ 
produce software unless you _pay_ them.  If you cannot pay them (since 
you cannot copyright the software and make a profit) then they will not 
produce software.  So, if your goal is to eliminate software, you have 
found the solution.

In a nutshell:  Property rights are a necessary condition for civilization.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how this set of maxims could be considered seriously by
anybody with a passing acquaintance with economics, history,
or common sense.  The maxims are ill-reasoned, unworkable, and 
destructive of those things they say they promote.  Sorry about that,
but you asked for my opinion...


Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/08/89)

In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes:
> In article <3687@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
> >Fourth - uh, is Datafuhrer Frank trying to tell us that material
> >communism has worked well enough to be a role model that
> >the information sciences should adopt?  If so, what planet
> >is he living on?  Material communism has meant poverty,
> >oligarchy, mass murder, brutal repression -- the list goes
> >on.  Is *that* what he wants the software field to emulate?
> >
> >Jeff Daiell
> 
> By "material communism" it is not clear what you talking about.  The
> Soviet Union does not have a communist economy and never did (except
> possibly during "War-Communism" during the Civil War.


But it has often pursued such a goal, and look at the horrors the
Soviet government has inflicted upon its own citizens in that
pursuit.  How many millions were deliberately starved by Stalin
in his attempt to force agricultural collectivization?  How many
murdered because they opposed various aspects of communization?
And look at other Soviet bloc nations, and the horrors they've
committed, either within their own borders or while attempting to
bring totalitarianism to other nations.

> but in terms of poverty, the USSR has make more
> progress since say 1920 than has the US.

Uh, need I point out they had massively further to go?  And
that we have damaged our economy severely by becoming *less*
capitalistic?  That had we,  in that 1920 you mention, turned
toward great freedom and less authoritarianism,  we might
have virtually eliminated hunger and deprivation from these
United States by now?


> think that the jury is
> still out regarding the comparative advantages of socialism, communism,
> and capitalism.

Again -- what planet are you living on?  Try surveying those who have
lived in both the Soviet Union and the  United States as average
citizens.

> 
> Now back to software copyright.  I think the philosophy expressed by a
> Soviet writer some years ago ... 
> is a good one.  
> ....  The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance
> the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
> efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software. 

Next, let's balance your right to live in your home with my right to
use it.

> I think
> that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is
> important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no
> cost at all).

See above.

> Software has all the attributes of a free good since the marginal cost
> of making another copy is next to nothing.

This doesn't change an author's right to control his/her own property.

>  However, to qualify for a
> free good it should also be of general usefulness.  Thus I would
> propose that the United Nations (or another international organization)

Are you seriously proposing turning over software development to
bureaucrats and politicians -- people who owe their success not to
skill at electronics, but skill at PR?

> Taxes could be levied on computer
> equipment to help pay for this (but the UN has no such authority at
> present). 

Are people taxed enough already?  Aren't computers already difficult
enough for some folks to afford?  As always, the first option of
a coercionist is to make the folks at the bottom suffer.

> 
> The copyright laws on software need to be changed.  First, a copyright
> holder should have the duty to make source code (adequately commented)
> available to all who request it.

And should you have a duty to let me live in your home?


I think we should protect people's rights *more*, not less; provide
*more* incentive for people to produce software, not less.

Sorry, Dave; I'm just not enthused about making Big Brother even
bigger.  Laissez faire, laissez passer.


Para un Tejas Libre,

Jeff Daiell


-- 


                              Salve lucrum!

wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (04/10/89)

In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes:
>
> [some material deleted ...]
>
>Now back to software copyright.  I think the philosophy expressed by a
>Soviet writer some years ago in explaining the copyright laws of the 
>Soviet Republics is a good one.  (Each of the 15 "Repulbics" has its
>own laws).  The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance
>the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
>efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software.


You state that the State has a valid concern to balance the rights of
the creator (author) of a program to "reasonable" compensation and
the "right" of the public to use this creation.  I am confused about
(1) Who defines what is reasonable?  A commission of some kind?  A
top-ranking government official?  (2) What _is_ the proper balance?
Is there a formula that an aspiring software author can use to find
those pieces of software for which his rights will be the greatest?
(Some might say that the market does this automatically.)  And 
(3) This would seem to work best where people are actively prevented
from leaving the jurisdiction of this copyright scheme, since the
best software authors would probably be content to earn what
the market would bear and the mediocre folks would welcome any
guaranteed compensation.


>I think
>that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is
>important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no
>cost at all).

The author is the owner unless he has granted such rights to another
party, e.g. his employer.  The public has only those rights that the 
author chooses to grant to the public (setting aside the issue of
_personal_ backup copies, etc).  The implication above is that 
a software author will be compelled to _share_ the fruits of his
labor without a freely negotiated agreement between the producer
and the consumer.  Perhaps more sharers and gatherers would make 
software production more efficient by relieving software authors
of the problem of what to do with all that money....

>
>Software has all the attributes of a free good since the marginal cost
>of making another copy is next to nothing.

TANSTAAFL.  The only free goods that I can conceive of are the air,
gravity, and sunlight.  Even these depend on circumstances ...
the air that cosmonauts breathe is quite expensive.  The sunlight
in my garden can be blocked by a sufficiently tall building, so to
protect my access to the "free" sunlight requires purchasing 
additional property.  Perhaps there is some confusion between 
making another _copy_ of an existing program and the cost of 
producing the _first_ such copy.  Relative to the property rights
of the owner, the marginal cost of a copy is meaningless, what is 
the marginal cost of one more issue of a newspaper with a circulation 
of over 100,000?  How about one more book in a run of 200,000?  The 
claim is being made that there is some marginal cost limit below 
which a producer has no property rights.  What is that limit?  Exactly.
To the nearest 10,000th of a cent.  How was it arrived at?  Can such a 
standard ever be anything but arbitrary and thus require en_force_ment?


>However, to qualify for a
>free good it should also be of general usefulness.  Thus I would
>propose that the United Nations (or another international organization)
>pay for the development of general purpose free software (editors,
>compilers, spread sheets etc.).

Let's see, what nation produces the most software worldwide?  Take your
time....  Now, what nation pays the most (per capita) for the privilege
of belonging to the UN?  What nation is continually abused for not
signing up to the latest in collectivist pap spread by the failed
socialized economies (models of our new morality)?  Do we detect any
potential conflicts here?

>Taxes could be levied on computer
>equipment to help pay for this (but the UN has no such authority at
>present). 

Sure.  Those who are going to donate the fruits of their labor to
be shared and gathered by the world's top bureaucrats can also pay
them to do it.  Do you think the suckers will really go for this
one?  Perhaps they will ... heck, ol' Hank Reardon worked his
tush off up to the last minute ...


>They could also evaluate the existing free software and plan
>improvements to it.  To save development costs, they could get students
>to work on it as class projects as well as recruit other volunteers.

Sure, gee, do you think that both of the Computer Science students
in the US will want to work on those projects?  What is meant by
development cost?  I thought the only important cost was the 
marginal cost...

>
>The copyright laws on software need to be changed.  First, a copyright
>holder should have the duty to make source code (adequately commented)
>available to all who request it.

Perhaps "society" should jump right in and comment that code _for_
the author.  Oh, I forgot, the gatherers and sharers don't actually
produce anything except, of course, _fairness_.  Actually this is 
a great idea since the copyright guys could say, "Hmmmph, this 
code is inadequately commented.  You have failed in your duty to
society, comrade.  You will of course receive no remuneration until
the commenting meets our satisfaction."  The trick here is that
there are no standards and the poor schmuck could comment until
Siberia melts and never get paid.

The source of the code will dry up.  There are other creative
things people who write good algorithms can do that will provide
just as much satisfaction and greater income (after the sharers 
and gatherers get their mitts on _their_ share).  Of course the
solution to that problem is to make sure that no industry suffers
from a lack of sharers and gatherers.  

>Large economies will accrue if others
>can reuse some of this code, but not for producing a similar piece of
>software.

Some might say that _no_ economies will accrue, because nobody (except
the daft) will produce software.  But look there's more ... now we
have jobs for people (who aren't very good at writing code (or
the sharers and gatherers would _encourage_ them to do that instead))
to check the new code written by the non-socially-schizophrenic
software authors against every other piece of software written to 
ensure that the State's expensive software reproduction equipment
(which runs at zero (0!!!) marginal cost) isn't wasted on software
that isn't new, unique, creative, etc.  

>You may claim that if I write a program and others use it
>freely in other applications, then I am being hurt.  But I am being
>greatly benefited by having the right to put into my programs any of
>the huge pool of source code which would be available.

One wonders who will bother looking for a new, better algorithm for
doing anything, when the reward is that everybody gets to use it
and the producer will get to freely use all that stuff that is 
demonstrably worse.  What will a rational individual do ... hmmm ...
find a new career in the food service industry, no doubt.

Let us say that my neighbor and I both build a house.  My house 
is made of brick and is well constructed. I built it with great care.
My neighbor's house is built of cardboard and will not stand up
in a strong breeze.  Now we both go to the Bolshoi ballet and
since my neighbor returns home first, he gladly enters his nice new
brick house in confidence that I will benefit from the greatly
expanded pool of available housing -- his cardboard box.  No doubt
once I produce a brick house for everybody in the nation, I will
finally be able to live in one.

Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz

ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/12/89)

In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes:
>the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
>efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software.  I think
>that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is
>important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no
>cost at all).

"Software" just means computer programs.  Not high-quality programs,
not verified programs, not programs you could expect to sell for real
money, not necessarily finished programs, not programs whose source
code contains no private secrets, just programs.  It is not only
theoretically impossible to draw a rigid distinction between programs
and data, it is impossible in practice as well.  With the programming
language I use, I can not only draw the boundary almost anywhere I care
to in a particular application, I can move it without too much pain.

There is no such animal as "the public", there are only other people.
We cannot have *both* data privacy *and* an unlimited right for anyone
at all to access my programs without my permission.  (Running a program
is not the only way of "using" it.  Sometimes the greatest benefit I
have obtained from someone else's code is from exploiting the ideas in
it to make it do something else.)

There seems to be agreement in the scientific community that publishing
someone else's data without their permission is wrong.  Why is it any
better to make off with a copy of their data if they happen to be
embedded in a program?

Software is not free.  Good software takes a LOT of effort to produce.
David Lawyer is apparently willing to regard years of my life as of
no value because the end product can be copied cheaply.  If someone
has paid me to design a house, or compose an opera, or write a program,
nobody else has any rights to that house, opera, or program at all.

I am fully convinced that co-operation is not only morally better than
competition, it is more efficient.  Over the years I have posted several
minor things to sources news-groups, and I mean to post more.  But it's
one thing to give things away, and it's another to have parasites whining
that they have a right to them.  Why should some stranger have a right to
my love letters just because they happen to exist in the form of a
Postscript program?

peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/13/89)

"Who will help me bake the bread" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the goat.
...
"Not I," said Helmar Frank.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.

mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) (04/15/89)

In article <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>,
foessmei@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) writes:

>Due to progress in cybernetical technology, information is piling up
>and its exchange and processing is speeding up to a such degree that the
>principles of traditional communicational morality are shaking.  Three
>maxims of a new communicational morality seem to be more adequate for the
>cybernetical era.
>
>1. In the field of art and technology, not only the pollution of the natural
>   (material) environment must be fought but also -- and with the same effort
>   -- the pollution of the cultural (informational) environment. In a nutshell:
>   Culture conservation is as important as nature conservation.
>   ["Maxim of rejection of informational pollution"]

I agree.  While I determinedly oppose any form of censorship, I make a
distinction between the right to make information available to the public at
large and the right to force such information on them against their will.  On
the rare occasions when I visit the house of someone who keeps their television
tuned to commercial channels, I come away feeling much worse than if I had been            
in a room full of cigarette smoke.  As well, the same sort of consumer-product
laws that currently apply to american manufacture (e.g. making it illegal to
produce products that are unsafe, will cause cancer, etc.) can be applied to
commercial television -- I would particularly like to see more laws regulating
the content of programming aimed at small children, who are less able to
determine for themselves what is harmful or misleading.  Note that there are
already some of these in effect, and other regulatory laws as well:  the
Federal government has outlawed all advertising of tobacco products and of hard
liquor on network television for decades.  The flip side of this question is,
of course, positive:  the encouragement of alternate information channels (e.g.
public television and radio, newspapers) that carry less obtrusive and higher
quality information.

>2. The development of international scientific communication with the goal of
>   future advances is more important than short-sighted, frantic acceleration
>   of present advances in any special branch.  In a nutshell:  Advances for
>   future communication are more important than communication of present
>   advances.  ["Maxim of the priority of the communication process"]

The major reason that I decided against a career in any of the theoretical
disciplines I studied in college (biochemistry, physics, ai) was the realization
that with the amount of scientific information growing at an exponential rate,
more and more of a researcher's time is being spent simply trying to keep up
with current advances in their field, and possibly mistakenly duplicating other
researchers' work.  Without basic changes in the way we manage and exchange
scientific information, I think that there is a large possibility that the
research community will soon be literally paralyzed by success.

>3. The cultural community of the International Language, conscious that to
>   commun-icate means to "make common", should be a pioneer on the road to
>   informational commun-ism and a model to promote abolition of the anti-
>   cultural laws based on the superstition of "soft-ware". In a nutshell:
>   Copyright is a superstition hostile to civilization.  ["Maxim of
>   non-commercialization of culture"]

This statement is certainly open to mis-interpretation.  It is certainly true
that someone has to pay for the development of software, a costly process
(I know, for I have worked for a commercial software house.)  And, since the
authors of software, being not very numerous, can certainly not pay for it
themselves, it falls to the rest of the community to bear the cost somehow.
This settled, we can, with an open mind, discuss various alternative mechanisms
for such tariff to be levied.  Copyrights are one mechanism, which has been
tried with varying degrees of success.  There may well be others.  I have
serious reservations about the concept of copyright as it is currently
interpreted.  For example, I believe that (a) the author of a work has some
right to decide how the work is used.  (b) once a work is released for sale to
the public at large, a member of the public has a right to use said work or its
pieces, with suitable credit and very likely suitable payment, in any way he
or she desires.  (c) use of information not for profit (e.g. for education)
should possibly be exempt from such royalty payments.  I am by no means certain
about these points, but they are at least worth considering.

I get rather annoyed whenever I hear someone say "oh, but we can't use that <artwork,
excerpt, etc> because it's copyrighted".  I was once told that in the music
industry, anyone has the right to re-record anyone elses' song, and the original
author is entitiled to an industry-standard payment, no more.  In other words,
once a song has been released for sale to the public, the author cannot restrict
who will use *or even re-record* it.  I may have been mislead, but even so
it is a protocol I approve of.  I certainly see no harm in considering such
ideas, nor do I see the immanent demise of the software or of any other industry
on their account.

Please, let's see more open-minded discussion on this topic, and less of fanatical
rejection of ideas.

Michael McClennen
mjm@dartmouth.edu

new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (04/15/89)

In article <13060@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> mjm@dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) writes:
>The major reason that I decided against a career in any of the theoretical
>disciplines I studied in college (biochemistry, physics, ai) was the realization
>that with the amount of scientific information growing at an exponential rate,
>more and more of a researcher's time is being spent simply trying to keep up
>with current advances in their field, and possibly mistakenly duplicating other
>researchers' work.  Without basic changes in the way we manage and exchange
>scientific information, I think that there is a large possibility that the
>research community will soon be literally paralyzed by success.
>
>Michael McClennen
>mjm@dartmouth.edu

Is this sort of like "Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded"?
Where is all this advance coming from if everyone is too busy keeping
up with the advances to do any advancement? And so what if a researcher
duplicates someone else's work? Admitedly, the researcher will not get
any brownie points for it, but the original clearly was unknown to
the researcher and therefore was not in any of the journals that
the researcher follows, etc. The "evil :-)" of duplicating research
always seemed sort of artificial to me, especially since in science
people WANT duplication of experiments. Why duplicate experiments
only when it works?   - Darren New   new@udel.edu

kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (04/15/89)

The so called "New Communicational Morality" is nothing more than the old
C-chanty of the software pirate, transposed to a new key.  "Yo Ho, No Rights
for Writers.  Yo-Ho for the Freedom to Copy as I Choose."

Society repeatedly invents intellectual property laws.  Why?  Because they
benefit society by making more intellectual property available and lower the
average price.  Individuals repeatedly attempt to tear down intellectual
property laws.  Why?  Because it (temporarily) lowers the cost to access
existing intellectual property to zero.  Like pirates of yore, such
individuals are more interested in their short-term personal gain than
the needs of society.  The difference is that modern-day pirates fly the
false colors of benefit-to-society, and it-doesn't-take-anything-away.

I propose a test of sincerity for those who espouse the so-called "New
Communicational Morality".  Do as Stallman has done.  Devote your life to
the production of important intellectual property and give it away free.
To do otherwise would be hypocritical and now "immoral".  Don't take a wage
for writing code.  Don't hack protection schemes when you should be giving
your time to the cause of freedom by writing a public domain clone of dBase IV.
Until you have tested yourself for a time, don't say society is evil because
it expects you to pay for the fruits of another's labor.

steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) (04/15/89)

In article <13060@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) writes:

   I get rather annoyed whenever I hear someone say "oh, but we can't
   use that <artwork, excerpt, etc> because it's copyrighted".  I was
   once told that in the music industry, anyone has the right to
   re-record anyone elses' song, and the original author is entitled
   to an industry-standard payment, no more.  In other words, once a
   song has been released for sale to the public, the author cannot
   restrict who will use *or even re-record* it.  I may have been
   mislead, but even so it is a protocol I approve of.  I certainly
   see no harm in considering such ideas, nor do I see the immanent
   demise of the software or of any other industry on their account.

This is true in the US, or at least it has been in the past; our
recent signing of the Berne Convention may change things.  It's called
a "compulsory license".  Note, however, that such a license does NOT
give one the right to *change* anything without the permission of the
copyright holder (who is frequently a publisher rather than the
original author).

Another feature of the music industry that may be of interest is the
"Small Performing Rights Organization" ("small" modifies "performing
rights", not "organization"), of which the major examples are ASCAP
and BMI.  What these organizations do is monitor *broadcasts* to
figure out how much your songs are getting played.  They then bill
all the broadcasters (and anyplace else that's performing music for
the public, including nightclubs and the like), and distribute the
resulting royalties to the publishers and authors on a per-play-per-song
basis.  (The usual split is 50-50 between the publisher and the
songwriter).  The corresponding concept in the software world would be
billing BBS's and utilities like Compuserve.

Some countries also have a surcharge on recording media (tapes), based
on the idea that the purchaser is probably going to be using them to
record copyrighted material.  (There may be a way of avoiding the
surcharge if you can prove you're recording original material.)  

Steve Savitzky				#include <disclaimer.h>
apple.com!arc!steve			May the Source be with you!

brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/16/89)

While the pragmatic arguments for IP laws (the ones that correctly
describe how society benefits more from strong IP protection) are all
well and good, I would like to think they are *not* the reason for the
laws, merely a benefit of them.

We have laws that protect true property (intellectual property) because
we believe that it is wrong to expropriate the right of others to
control their own creations.

Sadly, if people don't get that fundamental concept into their heads,
and teach it to their kids, IP laws will never work fully, and we won't
get the strong benefits that they provide.

One of those benefits, by the way is that IP laws *increase* the flow,
spread and distribution of valuable intellectual works.  Removing
copyright hurts that flow, and as such would be an act against
the flow of information in society.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/18/89)

In article <3093@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> While the pragmatic arguments for IP laws (the ones that correctly
> describe how society benefits more from strong IP protection) are all
> well and good, I would like to think they are *not* the reason for the
> laws, merely a benefit of them.
> 
> We have laws that protect true property (intellectual property) because
> we believe that it is wrong to expropriate the right of others to
> control their own creations.
> 
> Sadly, if people don't get that fundamental concept into their heads,
> and teach it to their kids, IP laws will never work fully, and we won't
> get the strong benefits that they provide.
> 
> One of those benefits, by the way is that IP laws *increase* the flow,
> spread and distribution of valuable intellectual works.  Removing
> copyright hurts that flow, and as such would be an act against
> the flow of information in society.
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

Adam Smith, in _Wealth_of_Nations_, cites the example of usury laws.
At the time he wrote, in the late 1700s, Islamic nations didn't
provide a legal process for recovering money lent at interest.
As a result, interest rates were typically 50-70% per annum, while
countries like Britain that provided such legal processes, had
interest rates below 10%.

The United States, when it created provisions for patents, was
a world leader.  Where patents in Britain and other European countries
were granted as favors by the king, patents in the U.S. were 
available to anyone with an innovation.  Not suprisingly, the
U.S. created a greatly disproportionate chunk of the world's
inventions in the nineteenth century.  Now, U.S. style patent
laws are the rule, not the exception.

For those of you are uncomfortable with the idea of rights,
remember this: protecting intellectual property seems be to the
most effective way to dramatically increase the amount of it.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (04/18/89)

In article <1038@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes:
>
>
>In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes:
>>
>> [some material deleted ...]
>>
>>.  The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance
>>the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
>>efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software.
>
> [long comment by Will Bralick to the contrary]

What people may be forgetting here is that intellectual property is
"created" by the legal system. Without laws governing intellectual
property, it is worth little to nothing.* I fail to see any way in
which these laws can be fairly developed without taking into account
the effect on all parties affected by intellectual property laws -
such as creators, consumers, the government (national security
considerations), etc.

				Peter Desnoyers

[* There are other ways to recoup investment without using the concept
of intellectual property, mostly based on making the cost to steal
higher than the cost to buy - e.g. copy protection or low-cost
production. That is beside the point.]

new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (04/18/89)

In article <29140@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>
>What people may be forgetting here is that intellectual property is
>"created" by the legal system. Without laws governing intellectual
>property, it is worth little to nothing.* [more stuff]

For that matter, all property is created by the legal system.
Only laws keep you from breaking a window and climbing in and out with my TV.
Without laws, my money is worth little to nothing also.
Intellectual property is simply easier to not get caught stealing.
About the only thing worth anything at all without the legal system
defining it as property is a gun with better long-range accuracy.

>				Peter Desnoyers
>
>[* There are other ways to recoup investment without using the concept
>of intellectual property, mostly based on making the cost to steal
>higher than the cost to buy - e.g. copy protection or low-cost
>production. That is beside the point.]

Right. That is what safes are all about. Too big to move easily (usually),
steel on the outside so yoy can't chop them, concrete under that so
you can't drill them, and copper under that so you can't burn them.
However, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the only law
was "if it's in a safe, you're not allowed to steal it."
Ayn Rand has alot of problems, but much of what she says makes some sense.
		  - Darren New

brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/18/89)

In article <29140@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>What people may be forgetting here is that intellectual property is
>"created" by the legal system. Without laws governing intellectual
>property, it is worth little to nothing.*

You have it exactly wrong.  Intellectual property is created by people.
It is protected by the legal system.  It is material property, like land
and ore that is created by the legal system, since it was not created by
people.

Tell the owners of the formula for Coca-Cola that IP is worth nothing
without the law.  Tell AT&T, the owners of Unix.  Both of these highly
valuable pieces of IP are not protected by any form of intellectual
property law.  (Other than trademark and binary copyrights and the setuid
patent.  The source code to Unix is still unprotected)

In fact, I would argue that what makes most material property "property"
is the IP that is within it.  A car and a lump of impure iron are the same
piece of matter.  What makes the car 'property' is the creative work that
went into arranging the lump of iron.

Intellectual property is the only true form of property there is.  It is
the only once that exists outside the law.  There is nothing that is more
truly *yours* than the creations of your own mind.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/18/89)

In article <29140@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>What people may be forgetting here is that intellectual property is
>"created" by the legal system. Without laws governing intellectual
>property, it is worth little to nothing. ...
>[* There are other ways to recoup investment without using the concept
>of intellectual property, mostly based on making the cost to steal
>higher than the cost to buy - e.g. copy protection or low-cost
>production. That is beside the point.]

Er, if something isn't _property_, how can you _steal_ it?

There are several philosophies of law, ranging from "right is whatever is
in the interests of the State" to various theories of "natural rights".
You will find some of them arguing that property (like other rights) is
a creation of the legal system.  Some.  Not all.  The argument that
"without laws governing X it is worth little to nothing" is flawed;
(a) what counts is not _laws_ as such but laws which are effectively
    communicated to the popular culture and _enforced_. 
(b) you can use precisely the same argument to show that human life is
    worth little to nothing.
(c) "worth little to nothing" is not the same as "has no existence
    independent of the law".

I claim that there is an important issue here which has nothing to do with
"investment", "buying", or "costs".  If other people have a "right" to every
line of code I write, how do they get it?  Do the police batter the door down
at 4am?  (I may still be working at 3am (:-).)  If they have a right to some
piece of code that I wrote on my own time for my own interest, have they the
same right to a letter I wrote to a friend?  If not, why not?  You cannot
assert that the public has a right to all my programs without denying me a
right of privacy.  What's the difference between a program I wrote for my
own use and a painting I painted for my own wall?  The painting can be
copied, after all, and I can even generously be given a copy.

It would clarify our thinking if we banished meaningless abstractions like
"the public" and "the state" from the discussion, and talked about the
effects on typical individuals.

Consider the case of a sick man who needs the assistance of some complex
piece of computer-operated medical equipment for a while.  Assume, for the
sake of the argument, that he has paid whatever taxes (whether to an
accountable agency such as the government or a non-accountable agency
such as an insurance company) are deemed appropriate for the recipient of
the taxes to grant him medical assistance, and that he is in every respect
an admirable person.  Suppose that there is a programmer who has just
produced a much improved program to operate the equipment (and, to keep
the argument simple, that it has been thorougly tested).  Does someone have
a right to seize that program from the programmer for the benefit of the
sick man?

Well, a little reflection shows that we _can_ set things up to permit that
without denying the concept of intellectual property and without denying
that the programmer has a right to recompense.  It's already done in the
case of real property (that is, land).  I believe the name is "eminent
domain".  The government can seize your land over your objections, but they
must pay you a fair price.  (For practical purposes, they get to pick what
is "fair", but if they are _too_ unfair too often they may not hold power
for long.)  Similarly, it would be possible to grant some level of
government the power to make copies of some classes of programs for
specified purposes (national security, saving life, whatever) yet still
require recompense.

I would like to point one thing out about software.  It is a lot of fun
putting the prototype together.  We see a lot of prototypes in comp.sources.*
It is fairly unrewarding slog to get the thing into a state where it is fit
for use by ordinary people.  There are some very good programs available for
free, but there is an enormous amount of *junk* where people have had their
fun and gone on to do the next thing.  You will probably find a lot of
people who are willing to work for peanuts doing the exciting stuff, but I
seriously doubt that you will find them turning the prototypes into reliable
products without the assurance that the money they make from the products
will pay for the next bout of fun with a new prototype.

So it is in the sick man's interest for the programmer to be rewarded well
for the program to operate the medical equipment, because that means that
he will not only have the resources to build the next prototype, but will
still have the motivation to make it work reliably.  (I assume that someone
who is sick now is likely to be sick again in the future.)

desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (04/18/89)

In article <3103@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <29140@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>>What people may be forgetting here is that intellectual property is
>>"created" by the legal system. Without laws governing intellectual
>>property, it is worth little to nothing.*
>
>You have it exactly wrong.  Intellectual property is created by people.
>It is protected by the legal system.  It is material property, like land
>and ore that is created by the legal system, since it was not created by
>people.
>

Let me put it in a different light. The concept of ownership of
personal property (e.g. tools, animals) is ancient, and seems to be
agreed upon in all cultures I know of. Our concept of land ownership
probably arises from the towns in middle to late medieval Europe. 
It has been around long enough so that there is clear consensus
in our society on what property is, and what theft is.

Intellectual property is fundamentally different, as you can't take it
with you and you can't patrol its borders. It is a purely legal
creation (like the corporation, for instance) and has only been
evolving for perhaps the last three centuries. The definition of IP is
still not agreed upon. (compare US copyright laws to the Berne
convention, for instance.)

In other words, don't jump in sounding like Milton Friedman when
someone says "the government should decide what constitutes
protectable IP" or words to that effect. If the government did not do
that, IP would be worthless.

>Tell the owners of the formula for Coca-Cola that IP is worth nothing
>without the law.  Tell AT&T, the owners of Unix.  Both of these highly
>valuable pieces of IP are not protected by any form of intellectual
>property law.  (Other than trademark and binary copyrights and the setuid
                            ^^^^^^^^^
>patent.  The source code to Unix is still unprotected)
 ^^^^^^^

You reference several forms of IP protection above. You neglect to
mention that Unix is protected by a source license, which is again a
purely legal creation. Coke's protection of their formula is based on
a time-honored method that predates governments - don't tell anyone.
It is certainly effective, but I don't think MicroSoft would be happy
to know that they can keep people from copying their software by not
selling any copies. 


				Peter Desnoyers

les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (04/19/89)

In article <3103@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:

>Intellectual property is the only true form of property there is.  It is
>the only once that exists outside the law.  There is nothing that is more
>truly *yours* than the creations of your own mind.

OK, suppose we take away from you everything that has come from anyone
else's mind, and you can keep your own mind's creations (not that you
would be able to share them anyway, without a language).

Are we all better off that way? 

Les Mikesell

brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/19/89)

In article <1231@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>For those of you are uncomfortable with the idea of rights,
>remember this: protecting intellectual property seems be to the
>most effective way to dramatically increase the amount of it.

Not just the amount of it, but the distribution of it as well.  What
program is more widely distributed, Lotus 1-2-3 or PC-Calc, the
shareware spreadsheet?

In fact, almost all the world's most widely used and distributed software
packages are commercial, protected packages.  It is the packages with
"free" distribution that are the most severely limited in distribution.

When I hear people preaching that making all information free will increase
the flow of useful information, I don't know whether to shudder or laugh.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

mml@srhqla.UUCP (Michael Levin) (04/21/89)

In article <191@arc.UUCP> steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) writes:
>In article <13060@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) writes:
>Some countries also have a surcharge on recording media (tapes), based
>on the idea that the purchaser is probably going to be using them to
>record copyrighted material.  (There may be a way of avoiding the
>surcharge if you can prove you're recording original material.)  

	Right.  And I'm SURE that those countries perform a service for
the original artists by accumulating all of the surcharges, and then
dividing them up equally amongst the various artists/authors/etc.  In
other words, they are performing a service for the copyright owner.  So
if you are going to do an 'original' recording, they won't tax you.  That's
about as believable as the Infernal Revenue ?Service? performing an act
of kindness.  Face it, governments tax ANYTHING they can get their hands
around, and they DON'T do it to give money to those who deserve it.



					Mike Levin


-- 
 _            _           
| | ___  ___ |_| ___   Michael Levin     SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles
| |/ ._\| | || ||   \  20732 Lassen Street,    Chatsworth  CA  91311    U.S.A.
|_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_|  {pacbell|pyramid|csun}!srhqla!levin - levin@srhqla.UUCP

sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (04/21/89)

<3112@looking.UUCP>

In article <3112@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> 
> Not just the amount of it, but the distribution of it as well.  What
> program is more widely distributed, Lotus 1-2-3 or PC-Calc, the
> shareware spreadsheet?
> 
> In fact, almost all the world's most widely used and distributed software
> packages are commercial, protected packages.  It is the packages with
> "free" distribution that are the most severely limited in distribution.

[note FD = Freely Distributable]
The reason commercial programs have a wider distribution is because of the 
following reasons:

1> Advertizing. FD programs are not advertized except by word of mouth.
Commercial Software (CS to make my typing easier) Companies have ads in every
magazine you look in. FD software is at most advertized in the back of a
magazine in a 'collection'.

2> Reputation. CS will sell if the company has a good 'rep' such as microsoft.
FD is less well known and suffers because of it. A lot of people equate how
much you pay for something to mean that is what it is worth. i.e. A spreadsheet
that costs $500 *HAS* to be better than one that is free.

3> Support. Since CS companies charge for their software, and CS has the 
support of an entire company behind it, they can give out fancier manuals,
flashier packages, and more bug fixes (which they charge you for as an
'upgrade'). 

In my experience (with my Amiga) the quality of the FD software has been
equal or better than most of the commercial software I have seen. This is
because the FD software is a work of love. The author writes it, not because he
expects to get rich, but because he *wants* to. 

So don't put down FD software. It's distribution may be smaller, but the
quality is there. The distribution is a property of the bucks the commercial
company puts into the 3 points (mostly number 1) above, not because it's 
copyrighted. Many freely distributed software is copyrighted also.

Also, don't take this message as an agreement with the first poster that
suggested that we give all software away, and have the government set up
a committee to write programs. Blech! No way! Remember, I said that writing
free software is a labor of love, not a labor of force. If a person wants to
write a program and give it away, then it has to be his choice, not the
governments.



-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a Unicorn.

bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (04/23/89)

In article <564@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
: So don't put down FD software. It's distribution may be smaller, but the
: quality is there. The distribution is a property of the bucks the commercial
: company puts into the 3 points (mostly number 1) above, not because it's
: copyrighted. Many freely distributed software is copyrighted also.

Note, however, that if the companies couldn't protect their software
they'd not put their money into distribution. Thus it is still the
case that copyrighting the software (and other means of protecting
one's software) is essential to the wide distribution of commercial
software. And so, the original conclusion stands: protection of
software leads to greater distribution of software.

(Get that damned invisible hand out of here. Out! OUT!  O.U.T.! :-)

---
Bill                            { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill