>From: der Mouse  <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>

>Lots of people *currently* write software and release it free.

Sure, including me, WHEN I CHOOSE TO.  But the idea that the person who
took the trouble to write the software should have no right to control its
distribution is ridiculous.  Writers, artists, and musicians all have
this right, what's special about software that makes it worthless?

>(Haven't you noticed what
>a strong correlation there is between a piece of software being of high
>quality and it being free?

Not in the slightest.  Most of the free software I've used is full of
holes, but when you use GPLed software you just have to resign yourself
to code that rarely seems to do anything 100% right.  Sure my Linux/x86 box
has 166 days of uptime right now, but rwhod always adds 1 to the actual #
of users, elvis sends a lone ESC character every time you exit, trn SEGVs
sometimes when you type "!", Mail ignores "Reply-To" header lines, lynx's
screen handling is permanently screwed up after a "!" command, ftp doesn't
notice error replies on "mget" commands, dd doesn't notice if the output
device is write-protected, and even with just one user on a direct-connect
line the machine seems to freeze for no reason every hour or so for maybe
20 seconds.  Nothing really fatal, just a zillion little irritants that get
in the way many times a day.  Certainly Microsoft software is worse, and
*some* free software is outstanding, but so is a lot of commercial software
so my point is the simple fact that it's free doesn't seem to be much of an
indicator.

One thing I've definitely noticed about free software is that the selection
of programs that are available is a bit lopsided.  Commercial software is
produced based on what the vendor believes the market actually wants.  Free
software is usually produced based on what the author enjoys working on.
So there are plenty of nice HTML editors and paint programs around, but if
you need a decent PCB CAD program or a really powerful linkage editor you're
probably going to have to pay for it.

>Just because you work hard does not give you the right to expect
>anything from anyone in return.  Not even if the work helps someone
>else, though that arguably creates a vague *moral* right to some kind
>of reciprocation, though certainly not a legal one.

I'm not saying people should notice that you're working and come give you
money out of the goodness of their hearts, but if you say you're willing to
do the hard work in exchange for payment from those who benefit, they would
have to be real jerks to wait until you've fulfilled your half of the deal
and then welch on theirs.  If the software is of no value to them, why are
they using it?  If they want to use free software, then why don't they use
the free software that already exists?

>The whole
>reason for having a legal notion of "property" that is "owned" evolved
>out of a property of physical objects: that which one person has,
>another does not.  Transferring an object deprives the donor of it.
>Information does not share this fundamental property of physical
>objects; that is why I believe it is completely inappropriate to extend
>the legal notions of "property" and "ownership" to information.

I wish I could program in your world where it would cost me nothing!
The major software project I'm working on now has cost me 4 years of my life
and many thousands of dollars in development costs.  No one can tell me I'm
not being deprived of a whole lot to write this package.  So anyone who wants
to enjoy the benefits of this program had *better* carry their share of the
very considerable costs that went into it.

You're trying to separate the intellectual property from the work that was
required to produce it, which IMHO makes no sense.  You can't pull code
out of thin air, it takes a lot of effort and expense just to learn how to
program, and more effort and expense to write code once you know how.
Production costs money, benefits are worth money, it's only reasonable to
use one to pay for the other.

John Wilson
D Bit