🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8041@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
>Why should software be free? Why not hardware? Cars? Telephone calls?
>TV? Money? Or anything and everyhting else? Why shouldn't all food be
>a labor of love? Are farmers mass murderers for not giving away their
>crops because someone out there is hungry?

Because software is an intangible, and an infinite number of copies can be
made of it.  In the case of physical objects, making two of something
requires twice as much raw material and manufacturing effort as making one
of them.  In order to provide more food, more farmers (or the same number
of farmers working more hours) are needed, not to mention more fertilizer,
pesticide, and storage and trucking capacity.  In telephony, the phone
company needs to provide more cables and switching circuits to handle
increased use.

Software, however, doesn't work this way.  There is no inherent limit to
the number of copies of a program that may be made.  The effort involved in
writing a program is unrelated to the number of copies that are made.
Media distribution has per-unit costs, and that's why the FSF charges $150
to provide a tape of GNU Emacs; they're charging for the media that they
had to purchase, and for the manpower expended to process the request.

Of course, this argument applies to just about everything covered by
copyright law.  For instance, a publisher may print a limited number of
copies of a book, but I'm not depriving anyone of a book by making a
photocopy of a book.  Basically, the purpose of copyright law is to
establish this artificial limit in order to allow the creator to get a
reasonable return.

A difference between software and literature, however, is that software
authors have other means to get income.  When an author finishes writing a
book, he's done everything there is to do, and he deserves some income for
it.  However, a software producer is also a service provider; he can charge
for customer support.  Going back to my above argument, it makes sense to
charge for customer service, because the service provider has a limited
amount of manpower available.  In effect, a book author or artist is
providing the service of providing enjoyment to the reader/viewer; without
copyright law, the only way he could get remuneration from everyone who
makes use of this service would be by requiring them to come to him to
read/view (e.g. by putting a painting in a gallery and charging an entrance
fee).  However, in order to provide this service to more people, many
creators give up their physical control by selling copies (i.e.
publishing).  Their primary service is still the enjoyment of making use of
a copy, so it makes sense for them to be reimbursed by anyone using this
service (in the enjoyment business, someone who makes 1000 people happy
should make more than someone who makes 100 people happy); this is the
purpose of royalties.  Copyright law encourages creative people to give up
physical control of their creations in exchange for legal control of the
creation and use of copies.
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar