Re: FSF

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

grams, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs ...

 ##Extracting money from users of a program by restricting
their use of it is destructive because the restrictions
reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used.
This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from
the program.  When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.

 ##The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive
means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we
would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness.
This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I ct with
other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades.
The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically
used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as
friends.  The purchaser of software must choose between
friendship and obeying the law.  Naturally, many decide that
friendship is more important.  But those who believe in law
often do not feel at ease with either choice.  They become
cynical and think that programming is just a way of making
money ....

 ##For more than ten years, many of the world's best
programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for
far less money than thesks such as legislation, family
counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting.  There
will be no need to be able to make a living from
programming.

 Stallman offers a number of suggestions of ways that
programmers could make a living within a market economy,
even if all software were free.  These include a voluntary
tax paid by computer purchasers, earning a wage by adapting
software to specific machines, and support funded by users
groups.

 Why would programmers behave in a way that appears to be so
altruistic?  To begin with, producing for the market
generally requires programmers to sacrifice their individual
identity.  One recent study of the subject concluded that
software that is produced for sale 'must be produced by an
industrial manufacturing process'.  The article continued,
'Only by relinquishing personal control over the deliverable
product ... can individual developers guarantee the
integrity of the project they are working on .....
individual freedom becomes taboo' (Bernstein and Yuhas,
1989, pp. 40-1).

 Given this situation, David Levy, a prominant libertarian
economist who generally supports market solutions,
understands that markets might not be appropriate for
scientific work.  He pointed out that people involved in
scientific pursuits enjoy the acclaim of the scientific
comunity for their successes.  This recognition amounts to a
signficant nonpecuniary incentive for good work (Levy 1988).



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx