> code (and all knowledge) wants to be free
What does this sentence actually mean? Every time I've heard of it it is just stated as an obvious fact with no explanation, or it seems to just mean "I want knowledge to be free".
What does this sentence actually mean? Every time I've heard of it it is just stated as an obvious fact with no explanation, or it seems to just mean "I want knowledge to be free".
To expand a bit more, code is freely, instantly, trivially duplicated, shared and remixed[1]. Much like knowledge there is no scarcity for these artifacts without legally mandated, police enforced, artificial scarcity. If the full source code for anything (Windows 11, EPIC Systems, whatever) was leaked tomorrow that would be a non-destructive event for both the code and knowledge involved. People work around this with trade secrets and intellectual property law but the 'entropic' norm is for these things to become more available, not less.
[1]: Since we're being literal there is of course some energy and time cost to the listed actions.
So rather than arguing from these philosophical principles I think it makes more sense to answer a pragmatic and very concrete question: is the world would be better off, or worse, for having intellectual property protections? I think it's clearly better because the existence of these protections encourages people to spend time and effort making creative works (including software). That said; I think software patents are counter-productive, as are extremely long copyright protections for software. But I think that for pragmatic reasons, not abstract ones that seem to fall apart when you examine them closely.
Your question, is the world better off, is impossible to answer in a manner that isn't based in conjecture I feel. Would people not feel the urge to create with a 20 year copyright term? 7 years? 90? zero? Aren't some of the most valuable pieces of software in terms of social good open source? What drives the creation of those?
The closest we have to a counterfactual of the current US based intellectual property hegemony is probably China, who are renowned for their lack of scruples in this matter. Isn't some part of their supercharged technical progress based off willingness to ignore IP? How much? Is California's ban on non competes partially responsible for it's innovative tech sector?
These are all fuzzy questions that are difficult to answer and you end up approaching them with values judgements in mind.
So to restate mine without that controversial phrase; the more people that can access and share information and knowledge the more we unlock the possibility of progress and improvement for the greatest number of people.