Re: [LI] Message from RMS.

[Raj Mathur <raju@xxxxxxx>]

Arun, why do you insist on misinterpreting my statements in public
fora?  The example that you give of ostensibly ``Raj's increasing the
weath argument'' is nothing of the kind!  The whole point I was trying
to make was that when you share material stuff, the total amount of
wealth in the world does not increase.  OTOH, when you share
intangibles WHICH DO NOT COST YOU BY SHARING the total amount of
wealth DOES increase while not reducing your personal wealth.

Let me give an example in words of 2 syllables:

1.  I make a map program which helps my wife avoid traffic jams at
peak traffic hours.

2.  Because of this program my wife manages to lessen her travelling
time by 1 hour/per on the average.

3.  The total amount of wealth in the world has increased by 1
man-hour/day (person-hour? Bah, let me be labelled a sexist).

4.  I put the program up on an FTP site for downloading.

5.  5000 people download and use this program.

6.  Each person manages to save 1 hour/day as a result.

7.  Now the total amount of wealth in the world has gone up by 5001
man-hours/day.

Note the important points here:

1.  My wife's gains are still hers.  If she gained 1 hour/day by using 
the program exclusively, it does not get reduced to 0.0002 hour/day
when 5000 people use the program.  See the difference between software 
and money?

2.  It does not cost me anything to upload the program to an FTP
server.

So please refrain from equating sharing of software, documents and
information with philanthropy.  Philanthropy is when you give away
something which lessens your personal wealth.  Sharing (and the spirit
of the GNU) is when you give away something which still remains with
you and also helps other people.

I hope I managed to make the difference clear.  If not, just go ahead
and send another misguided missile^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmessage and I shall
explain again at great length -- that's what you all really want,
right? ;-)

Regards,

-- Raju

>>>>> "Arun" == Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Arun> [snip]
    Arun> It doesn't work that way in practice - because of
    Arun> selfishness. If I have Rs 5 in my pocket, I'll keep it there
    Arun> so that it is accessible only to me, as opposed to making it
    Arun> freely available to someone who is needier than me, to whom
    Arun> the value of Rs 5 is more than it is to me. Effectively an
    Arun> example of Raj's "increasing the wealth" argument.

    Arun> However, when the difference in needs crosses a threshold,
    Arun> philanthropy kicks in and sidelines selfishness. Lots of
    Arun> people contributed to the Orissa disaster fund for example.

    Arun> You may point out that I'm talking more about money here and
    Arun> not freedom and accessibility. But in practice, they're so
    Arun> interrelated that you can't talk about one without the
    Arun> other. There are several examples of making lots of money,
    Arun> by denying certain freedoms.

    Arun> I can also do paintings for great philanthropist <foo>'s
    Arun> house free of cost, while allowing people to make as many
    Arun> copies of the painting as they want and still get paid as
    Arun> much money as the artist <bar>, who makes money selling
    Arun> copyrighted paintings. But the number of painters
    Arun> philanthropists can accommadate will always be less than the
    Arun> number of painters selling their paintings.

    Arun> I'd rather be the painter who makes money selling his
    Arun> paintings and occassionally donate some to the public museum
    Arun> and teaching promising kids what I know free of cost.

    Arun> I'll deny anyone on this list the freedom of taking away my
    Arun> $1000 anyday and gain the freedom of flying out to the
    Arun> Carribean for a great vacation :-)
	
    Arun> 	-Arun