Subject: Re: Ransom GPL Licensing: ethically and legally viable?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: 19 Feb 2003 13:05:56 +0900

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Shire <shire@tekrat.com> writes:

    Brian> Your explanation above still doesn't allow for independent
    Brian> software firms.  How are they compensated?

Any number of ways.  Proprietary software is the obvious one
(historically, anyway).  Pure service with development spin-offs is
another (Apache).  Pay-for-work (Ghostscript).  Government contracts
or research grants.  Never release, and run an ASP.

What I find fascinating about both Tom Lord and the Ransom proponents
is the insistence on a "fair" compensation which is far above mean
world personal income, Federal minimum wage, or even US average
income.  I just don't understand this.  If what you guys do isn't
valuable enough to morally justify at least _asking_ for "all the
traffic will bear", how do you justify asking for more than $6.50/hour
+ amortized cost of education (and only if you paid for it yourself)?

This is a completely separate issue from either the morality of
"enclosing" intellectual assets (aka "intellectual property") or the
efficiency of IP markets.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.