Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [discuss] Open source software News

[Ralph Janke]

Tom Yates wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, ian wrote:
>
>  
>
> > No, I'm not a socialist, I am in business and happen to believe
> > customers should be served by business not simply exploited by either
> > state or private monopolies. This is why Government should fund FLOSS
> > projects but insist they are GPL, not Crown copyright (UK).
> >    
>
> Not only are GPL and Crown Copyright *not* self-contradictory, copyright 
> is required in order for the GPL to apply.
>
> I don't want to seem deliberately picky, but I think it's worth making the 
> point that free software licences *require* a working copyright system in 
> order to function.  A lot of people, particularly laymen, misunderstand 
> that point and I think that's one of the most common causes of the 
> accusation of "socialism" that we seem to have to defend against on a 
> regular basis.
>
>
>  
Tom, you are absolutely right. GPL is based on the foundation of a 
working copyright law. Also GPL is far less socialistic
than patents. Free markets are working because of competition. In order 
to have price stability and innovation, it is very
helpful to have as much competition as possible.

Patents on the other side are granting monopolies. While one could argue 
that the monopoly is usually granted to a private person
or organisation, it is granted by the government (actually an 
organisation delegated to do this)  in the name of the state. It is highly
regulatory since it is a monopoly. It prevents competition since it is a 
monopoly and therefore most of the times has the effect
of slowing down innovation.

However, even patents have their place where investments are so high, 
that without a "protected" market the risk of investment is too high, and
therefore the absence of a monopoly market for some time would prevent 
the development of i.e. medication that is beneficial to society.
Patents therefore should be used as remedy for problems that free 
markets are not setup to solve, not as general applicable principle.
A general principle of ownership for a few of something that should be 
able to be owned  (through copyright) by many should be called feudalism.

I do not see why it can be claimed that it is socialism when competition 
is promoted,
Also, the fight against patents that are granted for every little thing 
that is often neither novel but rather in the realm of common sense should
be rather described as a fight against a neo-feudalism than to be 
compared to socialism.

Therefore copyright is an important foundation in a free market, patents 
applied in the wrong way will lead to a form of neo-feudalism.

Ralph Janke