OT: was Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran@acm.org]

> Steve: In 5 to 100 years all programs will be GPL'd.
> economists: Only [category B] will pay programmers to produce public
> goods programs.
> Tom: So in 5 to 100 years programmers will be employees of [category B]?
> (Statements condensed for clarity.)
   No.  Not "only [category B] will pay programmers so all programmers will
be employed by [category B]" but rather:
>>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
>> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
>> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.

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

   Note, BTW, that Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are an attempt to
raise exclusiveness, so their programs are not "Public Goods".

> The thought has indeed crossed my mind that maybe the term "public
> goods", or the economic theory you referenced, is only relevant to
> material goods.
   The classic example of a "public good" is national defense.  If
I get more, it doesn't mean you get less so it's nonrivalrous, and
it's very difficult to exclude you from the benefit provided to me.
Hardly a "material good".
  I suggest spending some time with a good intro econ textbook.