Re: RMS's note to am-info regarding software development models...

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Eric M. Bennett wrote:
> My
> question is, if the philanthropic and voluntary methods of funding free
> software prove in the end to be insufficient, to what degree should we rely
> on taxation?  If taken to the extreme point where we try to fund the entire
> software industry almost entirely with tax money, I think the message that
> comes across is, "Ok, you lousy bums wouldn't contribute to my vision
> voluntarily, so now I'm gonna get the government to *make* you fund my
> vision!"  Some people may take this extreme view; others may not.
> 
> I'm just wondering what supporters of "software taxes" have to say about
> this issue, because if they support such a tax then presumably they have an
> idea about how much should be collected and how it should be collected. 


   1.  I supported the NSF support for the IETF secretariat.  Sorry to
see this privatized, actually.
   2.  I supported the Clinton Administration support for Internet II
funding.
   3.  I supported the Clinton Administration's proposal for $250
million for distance education software, and thought the amount should
have been higher.
   4.  I think a 1 percent tax on computers and software, given back to
Universities to hire people to write free software, would be a great
idea, for consumers of software and for universities and workforces. 
And it would probably do more to curb monopolies than DOJ.

  I hope this is clear enough and specific enough.

   Jamie

-- 
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
202.387.8030; f 202.234.5176
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org