Re: price of software [was Re: [ox-en] Book project]
- From: Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:31:56 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Indeed, if you wish to be accurate in that way, all software is gratis and
the copyright licensing is not. That just means that saying "free software
is gratis" as if it is something different is a little sly, I think. No?
Why is it sly? [...]
Well, qualifying "software" as "free software" when it is a truth applying
to all "software" is almost misrepresentation, isn't it? It makes it sound
like this is something different and unique to "free software". I don't
think that was what was meant by the text.
But I have to pay to use commercial software and I don't have to pay to
use free software, which I do think was what was meant (if it was
translated correctly in the first place).
[...]
Rights over a work can be sold.
This isn't generally true, either. In a lot of Europe, certain "moral
rights" of an author over the work seem not to be transferrable. IANAL.
I guess I should have said 'the copyright can be sold'.
[...]
Free software by definition has a license that doesn't restrict your
rights, including the right to copy it without charge. So free software as
embodiment doesn't even have a license cost - for end users it must be
completely gratis.
Maybe it is better to say that free software cost tends to zero as the
number of licensees increases? (in a Smith-capitalist market, that is)
Isn't that exactly the point? We don't have a 'Smith-capitalist' market
for any software because of the existence of copyright law, exactly for
the reason you've given: to stop charges going to zero (the fact that
copyleft can make use of copyright law for other goals is beside the
point). I think all the lawyers/economists (IANALOE) agree that
copyright is an artifical monopoly created because markets can't handle
'IP'.
Then
again, this would encourage rational users (are there any?) to delay buying
for as long as they can, which probably isn't what we want to happen, as
then innovation will die.
Aargh.. that's the anti-free-software argument. Innovation dies without
being able to charge for software. Disproved by free software.
How much do people think they are paying for related services when they buy,
despite what the transaction says? Is there past work on that?
[...] And maybe if people read 'gratis' as 'no price' it helps to
reinforce people's mistaken idea that they 'buy' software. [...]
How do you read it?
Generally, this discussion isn't really the one that I wanted to start, but
it has been interesting and covered a lot of ground. Thank you. May I have
your permission to summarise it somewhere, including your wording?
Please can you hold off a bit? Since Russell just wrote:
'I find much of the rest of this thread rather confusing in seeming to
suggest that if something is 'libre' it automatically becomes 'gratis'.'
I'd like to see if he shows I've got something wrong in my reasoning...
Graham
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/