-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Content-description: Mail message body
On 12 May 2004 at 16:19, Jo=E3o Miguel Neves wrote:
A Ter, 2004-05-11 =C3=
=A0s 20:01, Niall Douglas escreveu:
What about a system whereby all zer=
o-copy cost human output is
recompensed via general taxation? I include=
books, music, video (all
television), software, blueprints, designs et=
c.
I've never seen such a system work. They're always pieces of art t=
hat
are ignored by such systems and it usually puts to much power in the =
hands of those deciding what is a work under copyrgiht.
Such a system woul= d fail if encumbered with government intervention. Consider sourceforge as= an example of what I mean - people upload projects and people download th= em. Most projects on sourceforge will only ever be of minority interest an= d probably half will be near useless due to lack of quality or attention. = However I think everyone will agree that sourceforge's structure is a grea= t facilitator for cooperative work (though it could be a lot better still)= .
Everyone puts their work on some high capacity central servers which
= are available to all citizens who create an account on the servers.
=
Each copy downloaded increments a counter for the thing downloaded.
Tech=
nically impossible to do. This conclusion is a result of my work
with the=
National Library of Portugal. We don't have the resources to
manage that=
.
We could end world hunger tomorrow if enough political will was present. = There is certainly no technical reason why not.
Same goes with the system I= outlined.
I doubt free software as the FSF defines it will last the co=
urse. It
depends too highly on there being a large body of affluent peo=
ple
with other sources of income. However, its cooperative mode of p=
roduction is VERY interesting and strongly hints at how all future
prod=
uction shall be achieved especially in the non-hierarchical
structure r=
equired by the likely post-collapse economy. After all if
companies are=
never bigger than a few hundred people, the correct
way to do large di=
stributed projects is how free software currently
does it.
My bank ac=
count disagrees with you when you say free software is not
sustainable, b=
ut who cares?
You are one of a very tiny minority. I would regard myself as=
technically pretty capable yet I couldn't earn a living working like you = do because I don't possess the necessary social skills such as gracefully = tolerating idiots and naturally networking with the right people.
Of the pe= ople I know who do make a living from free software, they are either emplo= yed by someone like RedHat and are of outstanding quality in the technical= field or they aren't particularly technical at all but are great organise= rs and naturally build contacts easily.
A good proportion of people just wa= nt to be told what to do at their jobs so they can serve their 9 to 5 and = get money. These people are fundamentally unsuited to working with free so= ftware which demands a high degree of self-leadership. Another good propor= tion like me lack key non-technical "soft" skills. All together we make up= an overwhelming proportion of the workforce which hence leads to my asser= tion that free software is not sustainable in its current form.
Don't get m= e wrong - we may get twenty more years before economic collapse. But free = software as the FSF defines it is intrinsically dependent on the current B= retton Woods economic system and when it goes so will gratis computer soft= ware except for very common things like operating systems and office softw= are.
Cheers, Niall