Yeah. Software licensing is artificial scarcity, trying to make the new world of bits seem like the old world of objects so that people who knew how to make money with objects can still make money with bits.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Are not the copyleft licenses the opposite of artificial scarcity, not just affirming that opposite, but also affirming to not impose that artificial scarcity later on, as a condition?

Even permissive licenses start from an absence of artificial scarcity. Even if though later on, forks can add their artificial scarcity.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago

I agree that it's artificial scarcity, but I don't think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.

It's the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.

As a user and contributer to open source, I'm loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn't as much ability to make a living in it.

Software patents can fuck off though.