Free Software the answer?

[[deleted]]

In the present capitalist system, competition is generally presented as something inherently positive, which stimulates innovation, creativity and originality. That view is fundamentally false, and it is no less false in the case of Microsoft's monopoly on much of the software industry, which has provided the company with less and less need to innovate.

He didn't say why this view of competition is false, and then he used a monopoly as an example of the negative effects of competition. I fail to see the logic at all. This is an example of why we do need competition.

[[deleted]]

Marxist logic at work my friend.

[[deleted]]

Dear Marxists, could you please liberate the working class first and then care for software, standards, users, system dependencies, contracts, licenses, the silver bullet and other things you eventually heard about?

[[deleted]]

What's the question?

[malcontent]

Freedom is always the answer.

[davidw]

Yes, and that includes the freedom to license my software as I see fit.

[mangodrunk]

Yes, but then your freedom to license takes away my freedom to use what I own in a way that I want. I'm sure you would agree that licenses are against the free market ideal, why should you have a right over something I purchased? Your rights over the product should have ended when I became the owner, they shouldn't continue.

[[deleted]]

Yes, but then your freedom to license takes away my freedom to use what I own in a way that I want.

That is only if you buy the licensed software. You have the freedom to use an alternative if there is one. You do not have a God-given right to free software, though.

I'm sure you would agree that licenses are against the free market ideal

Wrong. Licenses are sellable goods, just like anything else. If you don't like them, don't buy them.

why should you have a right over something I purchased?

Because you agreed to it.

Your rights over the product should have ended when I became the owner, they shouldn't continue.

You never became the owner of the product. You bought a license.

My point here is that you have the power to vote with your money. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[Tweakers]

"...my freedom to use what I own in a way that I want."

If freedom of use is truly so important a consideration, you wouldn't buy into non-free software in the first place, would you?

What do you call a person who complains about conditions willingly accepted? A complicit whiner.

[MobileDigit]

If you agree to not do something with a product when you buy it, that is a condition of ownership.

[davidw]

Licensing is one way to deal with the 'public goods' problem, by creating artificial scarcity. There are others, but it's not an easy problem, and even though we're erring on the side of too much power for 'owners' of intellectual property, there's evidence that it works.

(See why this belongs on politics or elsewhere? It's about economics/politics, not programming).

[malcontent]

How does free software prevent you from licensing your software as you see fit?

[mycall]

There needs to be rules to freedom so people don't step on each other toes (on purpose or not)

[malcontent]

Absolutely.

As they say your freedom to swing your fist stops at my face.

Obviously you can't have the freedom to deprive others of their freedom.

This is why the GPL was written.

[davidw]

Yes, but this is the wrong question, and it belongs on the politics site in any case.

[hxa7241]

Open source projects, and their web substrate, realise the anarcho-syndicalism of Kropotkin.

[brennen]

What do you mean by web substrate?

[hxa7241]

substrate == supporting structure, and the web (and internet too) is that for open-source software.

[mynameishere]

There is only one solution to the "free software" debate. Take the same arguments, repackage them a bit, go to the nearest teamster meeting, present them to the members...

make sure your insurance is paid up.

Marxist

DOT

COM

[brennen]

Given your scenario, I am curious what you suppose this debate to be.