Re: OT: was Re: and visual library once again

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> 
>>There's a hidden assumption in that argument, namely that "GPL'd" is a
>>subset of "public goods". If GPL'd programs aren't public goods, then
>>your conclusion about who will pay programmers is invalid.
> 
>    To not be a "Public Good", it would have to either be exclusive - easy
> to control who gets a copy, or rivalrous - if you have it, it will be less
> valuable to me (a CIA cryptography program for instance).  Offhand I can't
> think of an example of GPLing such a program.

But I'm sure you *can* think of some examples of GPL'd programs, and 
those will then have to fall into the "public goods" category. Hence, by 
your own reasoning, GPL'd programs *are* (a subset of) public goods, 
which is perfectly consistent with your calling Steve's GPL'd programs 
public goods.

> Further, I said "the market
> will undersupply", not "the market will supply zero, so only non-market
> orgs will supply".

True, but the sentence continued "leaving it to government or other 
organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers." That sounds 
like the market would not pay programmers to any significant extent.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu