Some proprietary software authors would likely feel the same way about free software. For example, Phil Katz drank himself to death after zlib used his invention to create the most prolific library in the world. I'd also imagine all the jobs software is eating would feel the same way. Now software is eating itself.

> Now software is eating itself.

I thought it would happen much faster. Programming isn't that much harder than Go (the game not the lang) is it? Once automated programming becomes common and useful the problem domain shifts to mapping human intention(s) to the automated machinery, or how to write tame AI that can re-write itself w/o going feral? (Personally, I don't think it's possible, and Isaac Asimov pointed out why. It's the same "strange loop" explored in a handful of sci-fi stories that have hyper-lucky characters. What, ultimately, is good?)

In re: Free software vs. charging for copies of software, I looked at the world situation when I was younger and figured that no company or even nation could pay me what I'm worth (in terms of the value that my ability with computers could potentially unlock) and the most efficient way to "work" would be to give away my output and take advantage of the "rising tide that lifts all boats". I took Bucky Fuller very seriously, and still do: we have all the technology to make a secular utopia, it's just a matter of logistics and psychology. And the computers can handle the logistics easily. I figured the psychology would handle itself once word got around, but it hasn't really. (I don't know if I was just incredibly naive or if humans are just incredibly stupid, it's a problem that still vexes me.)

How could nations pay us what we're worth? The pay schedule for coders already starts at Major General. A few promos and we're paid more than the President. Still can't afford to buy a house though.

Well, I mean, government contracts can be pretty lucrative, eh?

But I'm not being quite so literal. Imagine, say, all the value saved/created by the BitTorrent protocol, there's no way (that I can think of) for Bram Cohen to garner even a vanishing fraction of that value.

It's easier to destroy economies than profit off them.

I'm confused, I don't understand the point you're making. Could you elaborate?

There's no point if you think bittorrent's impact has been creating value rather than giving people the means to acquire value without giving. An economy without exchange is not an economy. Please do not interpret this as me saying economies are a good thing. The system is biased and new technologies put power into the hands of smart individuals springing up around the world.

> There's no point if you think bittorrent's impact has been creating value rather than giving people the means to acquire value without giving.

Ah, sorry, I should have been more clear above. When I speak of the value that BitTorrent created I don't mean piracy, I mean all the saved bandwidth and resources from having a more efficient protocol for transferring large files (for legitimate uses.) Maybe it was a bad example, instead think of John Cristy and ImageMagick, or Linus and Linux, the idea is that one contribution by one talented and skilled programmer can have huge, open-ended value, but that it's very hard to actually get paid even a minuscule fraction of that value.

To me, back in the day, in my fiery youth, it seemed much easier to reprogram economics itself by developing and releasing technology (Bucky's "Design Science Revolution") than to try to go the Jobs/Gates route and cash in. A quarter of a century or so later, it seems to me that the Free Software movement has pretty much failed, and I should have paid more attention when Etsy was handing out stock options...

> Please do not interpret this as me saying economies are a good thing.

It beats banging rocks together, but yeah. I'm in the "It was a bad idea to come down out of the trees." camp most days.

> The system is biased and new technologies put power into the hands of smart individuals springing up around the world.

We do live in interesting times, eh? I should take this opportunity to tell you that it's great fun watching you become a legend in your own time. Cheers! and well met.

I think people like Cristy and Torvalds just want to help out. It's fiercely competitive giving things away for free in our gift economy. Some devs work hard for years building open source software without ever knowing the satisfaction that people are using it.

> I should take this opportunity to tell you that it's great fun watching you become a legend in your own time. Cheers! and well met.

Thanks!