GPL not encouraging new technology

[MJ Ray]

Niall Douglas <s_fsfeurope at nedprod.com> wrote:
> I was more meaning the supplier to the most people ie; industry 
> leader.

Depends what you are describing as "industry" here.  Are we trying to get
share in an existing market, or replace one market with another, or...?

> Ah no - structural changes and disturbances *upset* the status quo of 
> rich people staying rich and getting richer. Without them in fact, 
> the elite would remain impermiable.

So why do you discount the possibility of causing structural change?  I
think a lot of your plan has been "this is the world we live in and we must
interact with it" rather than the commonly-held view of "we must construct a
robust new method".  Elsewhere you talk about replacing the current system
of capitalism, but here you are trying to conform with it in the smallest
details: contradiction?

[...]
> No, I'm trying to compare the overall long-term consequences of each 
> ideology.

But your history for comparison can only consist of about 20 years, which is
not really long-term.  I know computing is often said to move fast, but this
is economics and business science.  Your forecasts are likely to have a very
large margin of error.

[...]
>> 1. There is no *the* free software business model;
> "the" usually means the most common one which is what I meant here.

Sorry, I've not ever seen that definition.

[...]
> In the end, I foresee the same as you - this thread will peter down 
> to a point where it becomes a question of faith - do you believe or 
> don't you because as was previously said, this argument is probably 
> unwinnable for either side.

I think that we are starting to explore the real reasons for your views,
rather than the superficial expression of them in a complex non-free
copyright licence.  One thing troubles me, though: do you see this argument
a battle you are fighting that can be lost or won?

MJR