The Simple Economics of Open Source

[Bill Anderson]

Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> 
> In article <390534BB.3D6CEBDF at libc.org>, Bill Anderson <bill at libc.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >Unless you are redefining
> >'commodity' (possibly by your 'known to many' remark) to fit whatever is
> >provided as counter evidence.
> 
> A commodity is that which is available in large quantities, from many
> vendors offering essentially interchangeable product. This makes
> commodities inexpensive, hence the term "at commodity prices" meaning,
> "inexpensive."
> 
> In intellectual property then, a commodity is that which is known to
> many and not under copyright or patent.

All software is under copyright and/or patent. You are confusing
license/use/ubiquitousness with patent/copyright.

> Because of the near zero cost of
> copying, the large quantity availability is a non-issue with software.
> What matters is whether or not it is known to many, because you then
> have many potential suppliers. If it is only known to a few, then the
> number of potential suppliers is few, and prices are not like those of a
> commodity market.
> 
> Examples: The JPEG standard is known to many, and not under copyright or
> patent. Therfore, software that compresses/decompresses JPEGs is
> available from many suppliers (again, the ease of copying electronic
> media moots the quantity issue). Because of the fact that JPEG
> compression/decompression is known to many, software to perform these
> functions is plentiful and cheap (i.e., often free).

Incorrect. 
Although the "baseline" variety of JPEG is *believed* patent-free, there
are many patents associated with some optional features of JPEG, namely
arithmetic coding and hierarchical storage. 

GIF is at least as prevalent as JPEG, yet it is under restrictions (note
again, this is different than copyright)
 
> The Microsoft Word (.doc) format is not known to many (really, only to
> MS programmers) and binaries to read/display/edit data in this format
> are under copyright. Although others have tried to reverse engineer this
> ever changing format, they have not been 100% successful. The result is
> that if you want to be certain that you can read/display/edit a document
> in this format, you have only one supplier, namely, Microsoft. Because
> of this, software to perform these functions is not a commodity item,
> and is quite expensive.

The MSWord format is not under patent or copyright. Software to read and
write MSWord format is freely available, and free. You may want to pick
a better example set.
 
> In short, I'm not "redifining" the word "commodity." I'm using it as it
> has always been used. I think that many open source advocates have
> failed to apply simple logic to the economics of open source, believing
> that somehow, the internet, or software, is immune from simple laws of
> supply and demand. They are not.

Yes, you are most certainly redefining commodity. At a minimum you are
misinterpreting what 'commodities' are. Perhaps the below will help:
"""
1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b :
an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment
<commodities futures> c : a mass-produced unspecialized
product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>

2 a : something useful or valued <that valuable commodity
patience> b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE

3 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT

4 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a
market <the sensitive female singer-songwriter as a viable pop
commodity -- Elysa Gardner> 
"""

Absolutely nothing here is in accordance with your use of commodity. I
have _never_ heard commodity used in the way you are using or defining
it.


-- 
In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are 
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. 
          -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900