From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 20:26:17 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
Message-ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A19284714@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Jim Choate wrote:
> The reality is that we don't live in a free-market, but 
> rather a rather lightly regulated one.

Lightly? You jest. No, we certainly don't live in a free market, we have
a mixed economy. We *should* have a free market, government distortions
are much more destructive and pervasive than any potential abuses by
market leaders. Also, the latter abuses are naturally corrected by
competition, not necessarily immediate but certainly faster than
government distortions which they blame on the market as an excuse for
*more* government distortions.

The answer for establishing "rules" which insure "fairness," such as
preventing an OS vendor from conspiring against a single application
vendor and intentionally breaking their product or enforcing artificial
incompatibilities, is to create a framework for standards, peer-review,
arbitration and liability to enforce "fair" industry practice and
competition. Make it a contractually issue and not a criminal one,
reputation for punishment instead of life and liberty, and an optional
and competitive system instead of a compelled and monopolistic one. An
optional system must have an overall and mutual benefit for all parties
involved, the government has no such limitation and becomes an
instrument for theft.

We have two paths for international commerce and regulation, we can
continue to the New World Order (NWO), or we can divorce the supporting
infrastructure from the geopolitical power base.

	Matt