Is this a widespread misconception?

From Bad Samaritans, Ch. 5, regarding privatisation:

[I]t is argued by the opponents of state ownership [that] you have to give people ownership, or property rights, over things (including enterprises) if you want them to use them most efficiently.*

*Endnote:

Property rights need not be private property rights, as it is implicitly assumed by many people who emphasize the role of property rights. There are many communal property rights that work well. Many rural communities from all over the world have communal property rights that effectively regulate the use of common resources (e.g., forest, fishery) to prevent their over-exploitation. A more modern example is open-source computer software, such as Linux, where users are encouraged to improve the product but are banned from using the improved for their personal benefit.

(Emphasis added)

The question of what to call more relatively permissively licensed software, if there is a program licensed under the GPL, and you make changes to it and distribute it, you can sell it... Just want to make that clear...

See also: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses::Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?


Not a big fan of those licenses, as I have mentioned before...

Blogged with Flock