jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (08/16/89)
The FSF manifesto refers to a "software tax" which would, presumably, be levied by the government upon all citizens and whose proceeds would be distributed to programmers. Or at least this is the way I interpreted this the last time I read it. While I think this is an interesting idea, I think that it is impractical and dangerous, even if the citizens and government of the country were disposed to go along with it. How would the proceeds be distributed? Given all the fuss over a few thousand dollars of public funds used to support the recent exhibit of Robert Mapelthorpe's controversial photography in Washington DC, how could we reasonably expect that publicly- gathered and -distributed funds would encourage experimental and similarly controversial software design and development? While indirect government grants (made through agencies which are, at least partially, controlled by professionals in the appropriate fields) have done a good job of funding research and experimentation in the arts and sciences in this country, I am scared stiff of the prospect of any greater direct government involvement in my favored profession. I WOULD like to see less "software hoarding," and I AM willing to make a contribution of my own ... but I'm not willing to be either penniless or intellectually stifled as a result. Useful software SHOULD be left to the public, so that we programmers can quit reinventing the wheel and begin inventing its replacement ... but how? v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/16/89)
In article <3674@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) writes:
I WOULD like to see less "software hoarding," and I AM willing to make a
contribution of my own ... but I'm not willing to be either penniless or
intellectually stifled as a result. Useful software SHOULD be left to the
public, so that we programmers can quit reinventing the wheel and begin
inventing its replacement ... but how?
One free-market solution is to insist upon payment *before* the creation
of the software. This requires that the programmer have a reputation for
delivering the goods. For example, if rms were to ask everyone for a
$100 contribution so that he could sit down and work uninterrupted on
the GNU Kernel, I believe that he would get many, many hundreds of dollars.
Certainly *I* would break open the piggy bank.
He could, for example, estimate that it would take him six months to
write a kernel. He might reasonably expect to make $15,000 to $20,000
in that time by doing his normal consulting. Therefore, he would need
150 to 200 contributions. Of course, there would be a deadline for
the contributions to arrive. If he didn't get that many by the
deadline, he would send them back. He could set up an escrow account
to store the money during the time the contributions were arriving.
This ensures that people will either get the software they have paid
for, or else they will get their money back. And if the deadline and
the amount of contributions still needed are well known, then people
who want the software will know that they either have to dig deeper,
or rough up their friends. :-)
There could even be a deadline for completion of the software. If the
deadline is missed, then the money in escrow (or a portion thereof)
would be returned.
One advantage is that it reduces the risk that the programmer takes. He
is guaranteed a given amount of money if he completes the software. It
also guarantees that he would not be able to get rich.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)|
(Russ.Nelson@f360.n260.z1.fidonet.org)|(BH01@GEnie.com :-)jeffrey@algor2.uu.net (Jeffrey Kegler) (08/16/89)
I think the software tax would be a terrible idea. Reasons: 1) The tax would be largely wasted. The big companies would make a fortune off of it. It would be the best news for them in years. Their low productivity would not be a disadvantage any longer, because the tax would compensate them for costs. If any regulations are made to prevent the large low productivity shops from using this tax as a subsidy for inefficiency, they would backfire. Regulation would impose far more of a burden on the small software house or FSF-type organization than on the corporate giants. Adding a layer of bureaucracy to work around a set of regulations is what the biggies are good at. 2) The tax would not simply be wasteful, but create an industry and a bureaucracy hostile to creative software people, and who have a vested interest in making it impossible for them to work. A industry would form itself around this tax. The situation where people writing free software are only those who have strong motivations to do so would disappear. A host of entrepreneurs would spring up whose skill in life is getting a share of this tax fund. Almost certainly, these people will neither have the skill or inclination to write wonderful software. This industry and bureaucracy will control the purse strings and fund as little real programming as possible, and then only from those programmers who create the fewest troubles for them. Strong-willed, creative types, like RMS, wil not be long tolerated by them. A long as people like him are working anywhere, they constitute a challenge to the low tech types. 3) Bad ideas in the form of taxes are a lot worse than other bad ideas, because the tax is backed by force, while a bad business relationship is voluntary. The skill of low tech types in finding angles to make money off the computer business always astounds me. Headhunters are a prime example. However, relationships with headhunters, unlike the tax are voluntary. While you would be forced to pay the tax, you are not forced to use a headhunter. 4) Once started the tax will prove very hard to repeal. Given any sort of foot in the door, the low tech types will bring their next skill to bear--lobbying. The tax on the computer business for the benefit of the low tech types will be promoted by well lobbied Senators and Congressmen as a scared right, an investment in a high tech future, a defense against Japanese competition and Soviet aggression and so on. Of course, the law will be tweaked for the benefit those doing the most effective lobbying. These will not be the people writing the best free software. A software tax will be something we all regret in realtime. It will create an industry and bureaucracy we will come to despise. Think of intellectual property rights as a software tax, which is really what they are. Only intellectual property rights are not forced on anyone--you do not have to buy software (though you might have damn little choice). If you don't like intellectual property rights you will hate a software tax. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090