grams, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs ... ##Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. Whe n there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. ##The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I ct with other programmers i n general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must c hoose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making mo ney .... ##For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than thesks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to m ake a living from programming. Stallman offers a number of suggestions of ways that programmers could make a living within a market economy, even if all software were free. These include a voluntary tax paid by computer purchasers, earning a wage by adapting software to specific mach ines, and support funded by users groups. Why would programmers behave in a way that appears to be so altruistic? To begin with, producing for the market generally requires programmers to sacrifice their individual identity. One recent study of the subject concluded that software that is produ ced for sale 'must be produced by an industrial manufacturing process'. The article continued, 'Only by relinquishing personal control over the deliverable product ... can individual developers guarantee the integrity of the project they are working on . .... individual freedom becomes taboo' (Bernstein and Yuhas, 1989, pp. 40-1). Given this situation, David Levy, a prominant libertarian economist who generally supports market solutions, understands that markets might not be appropriate for scientific work. He pointed out that people involved in scientific pursuits enjoy the accl aim of the scientific comunity for their successes. This recognition amounts to a signficant nonpecuniary incentive for good work (Levy 1988). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
