Seth W. Klein wrote:
>"Robert Anderson" <RWA@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>This will probably elicit boos from the peanut gallery, but it's
>>pretty simple. I am not particularly interested in directly
>>helping support a commercial company in developing a product
>>which will be profitable for them, even if I get "something free"
>>out of the process. The reason is basic economics - by enriching
>>others, I impoverish myself. Anyone who has tried to save for a
>>downpayment on a home in the SF Bay area during the stock option
>>days (who themselves are not in on the game) understands this
>>idea well enough.
>This might help the discussion:
>First, house payments muddy the concept, let's use bread.
>With bread, it is true that by enriching others, you impoverish
>yourself. You and i cannot both have the same loaf of bread. If
>i want to give you a loaf of bread and keep mine, i have to bake
>a second one to give you.
>But with software, you do not impoverish yourself by enriching others
>because (practically speaking) you and i _can_ have the same piece
>of software. If i want to give you a piece of software that i have,
>i do not have to write it a second time.
First of all, I agree that this is well off topic, now. Further flames
or discussion, email me personally off-list.
Second of all, even if this was relevant, it would still be wrong. It's
not relevant because I was certainly not muddying the concept that *I*
was discussing, which relates to cash money, not copies of software.
Owning copies of software is itself a bizarre metric for the terms
"enriched" or "impoverished."
It's also wrong, because cash money is a good example of why replication
that leaves the original intact is not, in general, "zero cost." Your
replication devalues my copy even though I still have it. That is why
counterfeiting is illegal. But again, that's an aside.
Take it off list, please.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Dec 17 07:35:40 2002