🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <970010@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes:
>/ gnu.misc.discuss / barry@mesquite.math.ucla.edu / Mar 26, 1990 /
>> But, they then must make these extensions---that they paid big $$$
>> to create---available to their competitors! Companies won't want
>> to do this!
>
>And they don't have to.  Instead, they can pay even bigger $$,$$$,$$$ to
>write their own system.
	And they might, given that competitors can use the gift to erode
income.

>Yes.  And if the management of _your_ company can see past their noses,
>they'd realize that it still makes sense, because other people (and
>companies) enhanced software for _your_ company.
	This is "highly illogical".  Perhaps a large conglomeration of
corporations could get together and say "we think OS's are too important
to have standardized to be proprietary" and proceed to use contract law
to force each other into making certain levels of enhancement, more
likely by funding FSF or some other group.  But you can't break a
prisoner's dilemna by arbitrarily cooperating.  I can tell you, I would
not be impressed by the management of a company that gave software or
enhancements to competitors.

>I don't think competitive companies will sit and wait for somebody else to
>port or custom-improve GNU for their iron.  If anything, the problem will
>be merging the improvements that will be coming in from all directions.
	For some, small and localized, enhancements sure.  But no one in
their right mind would make an enormous enhancement if the investment
didn't work.
	I must admit that I find FSF's philosophy to be essentially
flawed, in its opposition to property rights.  The basic fact is that
creation of software is expensive and the assumption that one should
"share" software is no different than the assumption that one should
share any other kind of property.  Property doesn't derive its value
merely from basic resource inputs -- the predominant aspect is the
labour (including entreprenneurship) that is invested.  As far as the
FSF are concerned, I don't have a problem with their own desire to
create shared software (so long as they don't try to strip property
rights from those who do not wish to share their own software) and I
agree that there is a role for making certain software extremely
inexpensive and standardized.  Given antitrust laws, FSF may be the
only way to do this.  However, if GNU is to become a standard, it
will need to have plenty of flexibility.
		Ron