From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-07-25T03:56:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Editor

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:04:58PM +0900, Brad Phelan wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:49:59PM +0900, Brad Phelan wrote:
> >>However it always stuns me when software geeks come with arguments as 
> >>previously posted because we are meant to be abstract thinkers. However 
> >>I keep hearing the same old argument along the lines of `if I can't kick 
> >>it, it has no value and should be free.`
> >
> >I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort.  Maybe I'm just not
> >thinking abstractly enough to know where you got that.
> >
> 
> 'governmentally enforced artificial scarcity model where software is 
> treated as physical product units.'
> 
> What does this mean other than that software has no inherent
> monetary sale value other than that artificially imposed
> by government control?

It's a statement of the economic reality of the circumstances.
Pretending that there's a limit on how many of something you can
distribute when, in fact, there is not is called "artificial scarcity".
In this case, the artificial scarcity is achieved through governmental
"management" of market forces, all for the purpose of allowing vendors to
pretend that software is a physical product that can be shrinkwrapped and
sold in discrete units.  The statement you quoted didn't even make any
value judgments on that state of affairs -- it just identified it
factually.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Isaac Asimov: "Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is
completely programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest."