> How is the current "notion of IP for software" not sustainable?
The only reason the "notion of IP for software" is a thing is that our intuitive notions of ownership don't quite work. We can't sell software without sources because nobody wants to allow a stranger to run arbitrary code on their computers. We can't sell software with sources because it's too easy to copy. We can't give away software with sources for free because people gotta eat.
So IP is a hack that slips into a gap just because there’s nothing better. But it's not a great hack.
https://250bpm.com/blog:82 makes a compelling argument that licenses exist only to help CYA companies consume software without risk. All of the software on my computer is owned by others, and yet nobody bears any liability for security holes. It's hard to discuss licenses, because "IANAL". But any time spent looking into licenses quickly uncovers stuff that's only there because nobody has tried to fight it in court yet. Licenses apply to a single snapshot of code, but software has a life cycle and needs a supply chain and governance structure (https://monetize.substack.com/p/a-holistic-vision-of-open-so...)
> how is setting up a situation that seems to be asking for a tragedy of the commons more sustainable?
I think a lot about the tragedy of the commons (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4359257#4361596), but it's not clear to me how people putting things made of bits in a digital commons that anybody can use creates any sort of tragedy here. If you have a specific scenario or externality in mind, we can certainly discuss it.
> how is making something and holding it back until getting paid a certain amount a "counter-force to greed"?
It’s a counter-force because of the bounding effect. You can choose to extract as much value as you want — but you gotta say up front what you want.
Users are not passive entities here. If you choose to set the number too high, discerning consumers may choose to not feed your network effects. If you set the number to something people feel is reasonable, your adoption may speed up, because people feel like they’re contributing to something good entering the commons.
The only reason the "notion of IP for software" is a thing is that our intuitive notions of ownership don't quite work. We can't sell software without sources because nobody wants to allow a stranger to run arbitrary code on their computers. We can't sell software with sources because it's too easy to copy. We can't give away software with sources for free because people gotta eat.
So IP is a hack that slips into a gap just because there’s nothing better. But it's not a great hack. https://250bpm.com/blog:82 makes a compelling argument that licenses exist only to help CYA companies consume software without risk. All of the software on my computer is owned by others, and yet nobody bears any liability for security holes. It's hard to discuss licenses, because "IANAL". But any time spent looking into licenses quickly uncovers stuff that's only there because nobody has tried to fight it in court yet. Licenses apply to a single snapshot of code, but software has a life cycle and needs a supply chain and governance structure (https://monetize.substack.com/p/a-holistic-vision-of-open-so...)
> how is setting up a situation that seems to be asking for a tragedy of the commons more sustainable?
I think a lot about the tragedy of the commons (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4359257#4361596), but it's not clear to me how people putting things made of bits in a digital commons that anybody can use creates any sort of tragedy here. If you have a specific scenario or externality in mind, we can certainly discuss it.
> how is making something and holding it back until getting paid a certain amount a "counter-force to greed"?
It’s a counter-force because of the bounding effect. You can choose to extract as much value as you want — but you gotta say up front what you want.
Users are not passive entities here. If you choose to set the number too high, discerning consumers may choose to not feed your network effects. If you set the number to something people feel is reasonable, your adoption may speed up, because people feel like they’re contributing to something good entering the commons.