I mean… I kinda get it, but nowadays it’s starting to get absurd.
(EDIT: This was supposed to be a “blow air out my nose and get on with my life” meme…)
I mean… I kinda get it, but nowadays it’s starting to get absurd.
(EDIT: This was supposed to be a “blow air out my nose and get on with my life” meme…)
But that is not the point the other comment was making. It said that there is no incentive to create something and innovate if anyone can just copy it, and the whole FLOSS movement is a prove that is not the case. Same thing with the argument against UBI that would remove the insentive for people to work.
You can have other justification for IP, but that was the one the commenter gave and it is empirically false.
What is the incentive to create and innovate FOSS? Altruism? I’m genuinely asking, maybe I don’t know enough about the movement.
People like to make stuff for themselves, to do things, to share, and feel useful. I believe it is the default state of people, you see that in families and close friends. You see people simply doing stuff for themselves and sharing the results. You can build a pool and invite over your friends and such. It is nice when you do something for yourself but that other people also enjoy.
So I think the primary reason is that people like to do things to benefit themselves, things that they want the result or that they enjoy doing the process, and then why not share, even better if other people enjoy the result. It is like cooking for your family or friends
I agree people can and do create without IP as a motivation, and would continue to in its absence. I believe in a perfect world where everyone’s needs are met, IP may not be necessary at all. I would argue, though, that in the world we live in, the economic incentive IP creates has tangibly contributed to many valuable innovations that benefit humanity. Many people and companies rely on that incentive to be able to fund the work needed to create.