While I don't want to dismiss this line of reasoning too casually, I think it overlooks a far more important form of trust.
The reason I trust that my neighbor will not murder me in my sleep is that I trust society at large to enact retribution (prison time) on my behalf. The state has absolutely no obligation to protect me (despite what the "we must think of the children!" crowd thinks), but it does have an obligation to enforce its laws. One of those laws requires a reasonable effort to find my killer, and that is what keeps me safe.
But this trust is semi-optional - if I am fearful for my safety, I can take actions on my own. I can obtain a guard dog, or study a martial art. In many parts of the US I can even keep a gun in the nightstand.
What does this have to do with software?
UCITA. To a lesser extent, the DMCA. The apparent inability or unwillingless of the government to deal with a proven predatory monopolist.
In social terms, software (and other media) rights are arguably closer to a feudal model than a democratic one. We are asked to trust that Lord Bill, who can literally do no wrong, will not harm us. If he does, we have no rights.
This trust is mandatory - we must trust our software providers, and are legally unable to act to reduce our perceived risk.
For instance, we have to trust that UCITA, the DMCA, and a mandatory subscription model won't result in a situation where our critical data is held in a proprietary format that we can no longer access because the product was discontinued (and technical self-help caused the software to self-destruct), and no tools are available to extract the data in other forms because of the DMCA and anti-reverse-engineering provisions.
In contrast, the open licenses make this trust optional again. I can trust that 'gcc' will always be available... or I can keep backup copies of the source, and the source for everything needed to compile it, on hand.
I think most people will be concerned with this form of trust, not the "gift culture" that motivates developers.
The other side of trust (Score:4)
The reason I trust that my neighbor will not murder me in my sleep is that I trust society at large to enact retribution (prison time) on my behalf. The state has absolutely no obligation to protect me (despite what the "we must think of the children!" crowd thinks), but it does have an obligation to enforce its laws. One of those laws requires a reasonable effort to find my killer, and that is what keeps me safe.
But this trust is semi-optional - if I am fearful for my safety, I can take actions on my own. I can obtain a guard dog, or study a martial art. In many parts of the US I can even keep a gun in the nightstand.
What does this have to do with software?
UCITA. To a lesser extent, the DMCA. The apparent inability or unwillingless of the government to deal with a proven predatory monopolist.
In social terms, software (and other media) rights are arguably closer to a feudal model than a democratic one. We are asked to trust that Lord Bill, who can literally do no wrong, will not harm us. If he does, we have no rights.
This trust is mandatory - we must trust our software providers, and are legally unable to act to reduce our perceived risk.
For instance, we have to trust that UCITA, the DMCA, and a mandatory subscription model won't result in a situation where our critical data is held in a proprietary format that we can no longer access because the product was discontinued (and technical self-help caused the software to self-destruct), and no tools are available to extract the data in other forms because of the DMCA and anti-reverse-engineering provisions.
In contrast, the open licenses make this trust optional again. I can trust that 'gcc' will always be available... or I can keep backup copies of the source, and the source for everything needed to compile it, on hand.
I think most people will be concerned with this form of trust, not the "gift culture" that motivates developers.