Subject: Re: Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:58:13 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:

    >> What does this mean in terms of modeling?  Simply that I do
    >> something like put the number of people who use your software
    >> into your utility function, independently of the revenue you
    >> may or may not generate from it.  Doh, as they say; that wasn't
    >> so hard.

    kms> Is there a more direct benefit?

I plan to try to put your "recent example" (a "more eyes" application)
into the production function.

    kms> Um....  <raising hand> Teacher!!! <climbing on desk>

    kms> ...what about demonstrating merits of an approach to business
    kms> people^Wthings?

They don't tend to listen to people who start by explaining the law of 
zero profits.

    kms> I'm going to posit that production functions are inherently
    kms> simpler and more uniform than utility functions

No.  The only difference in practice is that the value of the
production function is in physical units, the value of the utility
function is notional ("utils") and thus arbitrarily rescalable (not
even uniformity required, anything monotone will do).

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."