[paulhauggis]

"people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code."

This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.

Are we "slaves" because we don't know the specifics of something inside our TV or car? no. and we won't be slaves if we don't get all of the source code to the software that we use.

You act as if it's a right and when enough people start feeling this way, the next step is usually to get the government involved to force software vendors to open up their source (Stallman has openly stated that he would like this). Viewing my source code isn't a right and should never be a right.

The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.

The same thing that is happening to other industries will happen to developers in 5-10 years. We are just at the beginning of the transition.

I've worked at many places that could have hired 5 developers, but only hired me because we were using open source and the majority of the what was needed was already finished. Another factor is that the younger generations, who have been using open source throughout their lives, are growing up and starting businesses.

I'm not saying this is a bad or a good thing, just my prediction.

[icebraining]

This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.

That's doesn't necessarily conflict with HerraBRE's position. Personally, I don't think people should be forced to distribute their code, but I sure as hell will avoid such software if there's an open alternative. Ideally, I hope we as a society can eliminate the demand for proprietary software, thus eliminating it without ever violating anyone's rights.

The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.

More efficient competition is always scary. But for society as a whole, that's a very huge gain of resources that'll be applied somewhere else, possibly paying engineers to actually develop something new and worthwhile instead of reinventing the wheel.

In any case, we're on HN! Where's your contempt for the salarymen? ;)

[HerraBRE]

If I don't like the license you use, I don't. Except when I have no choice, which has unfortunately often been the case due to natural monopolies or social pressure. A decade ago, that problem was Microsoft. Today it is becoming SaaS in the cloud (witness Facebook's natural monopoly on all things social).

Regarding devaluing developers by making the entire industry more efficient... you can't possibly believe that's bad for society. You sound like you feel entitled to a big paycheck and government granted monopoly protection for your work (that is what Copyright and patents and the like are, artificial government granted monopolies).

I disagree with that sense of entitlement. And as a result, I do think your so called rights (privileges would be a better word) should be restricted a bit. :-) But I honestly don't think it will harm you. Without a complete paradigm shift in how code is created, programming will remain a highly sought after and highly valued skill for a very long time. There are still so many unsolved problems out there, and people will pay to have them solved, no matter what the license and no matter what the legal environment.