That is quite a nice army of strawmen you've managed to construct for yourself...
But your arguments could be applied in reverse to show that Public Domain is unsuitable for software, just as the GPL would be unsuitable for Folk Music. The argument goes like this:
Most folk music is in the Public Domain. It is distributed via live performances, which other folk musicians might listen to and take parts or nuances from these performances and use them for their own performances. Obviously putting software in the Public Domain would be unsuitable because then you could only get a copy of the software by going to a live performance where an artist shouts a sequence of ones and zeros, which you transcribe into your laptop until it becomes a program. Can you imagine if <insert favorite software program here> was written like this? It would have never been written without a court stenographer!
The above argument should make clear your errors in understanding. You are attempting to equate a copyright license (or lack thereof) with a method of distribution, and then apply them to two very different types of product for which the natural laws vary (ease of copying, legal/economic climate, etc).
Obviously the GPL (or similar) license would be ill-suited to folk music. Keeping folk music in the Public Domain seems to be the best way to go (we agree!). Also, I think that Public Domain software is more beneficial than GPL'd software (or any other copyrighted software).
But, before taking the mental leap into a frame of mind that all software should be Public Domain, we should probably examine the reasons for having Copyright (the opposite of Public Domain) on software. The primary reason for Copyright is to encourage production of software (or other works). The downside of Copyright is that it enforces inefficiencies in the distribution and subsequent re-use or derivation of the software to which it is applied. i.e.- You cannot do things with traditionally copyrighted software such as modify it or give it to your friend. This results in the following inefficiencies:
1) Some people are excluded from being able to use the software that might otherwise have benefitted from it, but were either unable or unwilling to pay for it.
2) Useful software that might have otherwise have been derived from the original work never come into being.
People (in general) would not tolerate the above inefficiencies unless they gained some benefit from it. That benefit is the increased production of software, because the programmers (or the companies they work for) are motivated by being able to charge money for this software... and charging money for the software is dependant on being able to exclude others from using/modifying it. This is what I call "Traditional Copyright".
But another type of copyright exists in the form of the GPL (or similar). This copyright also places limitations on what can be done with the code when compared with Public Domain. These limitations would not be tolerated unless they also provided some benefits in the form of increased production. The incentive for increased production is very different for GPL, as compared to Tradition Copyright. The incentive is usually for the programmers to be able to avoid the disadvantages of Traditional Copyright (number 1 and 2 above) while also avoiding the "Tragedy of the Commons" associated with Public Domain.
It is unfair to compare the GPL with Public Domain because they are not on the same level. Public Domain is the opposite of Copyright, and the GPL is only one out of many types of Copyright.
You could just as well compare Reptiles with Elephants, and claim that Reptiles are superior because elephants are too slow and clumsy. I would argue that it would be better to compare Reptiles to Mammals, where mammals can include elephants and mice and monkeys and beavers (oh my!).
So if you are convinced that Public Domain software is superior to all types of Copyrighted software, then we have an arguing point. If you would instead like to compare one type of Copyrighted software with another type (SCSL vs GPL?), then we can also have a useful debate. Otherwise, we are just jerking ourselves off in a public forum.
Have I reached my quota of posting length yet? ;-)
-Mitch
(no more beer after midnight) |
