No, it doesn't. Bone marrow regenerates, the same is for blood (which is a tissue). One thing is donating organs, other is donating tissues. While you may define an organ as a "set of tissues" (therefore, skin). In "transplantation slang" is commonly referred to "organs" as not regenerating ones, i.e. kidneys, heart, etc.

As long as you can't sell it, there is no price at it.

Nonsense. Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a container.

In particular, kidneys can be transplanted from "dead" to living, and donning between living - even inside your family - is very restricted (at least in Uruguay). Although one case may be very altruistic and reasonable, there are thousands of subtle situations which are horrendous, and all the donning process will be heavily affected.

It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

Improving the donors rate with policies is a better way to go and it hasn't reached its limits so far.

UPDATE: http://www.itworld.com/software/228393/free-software-activis...

This is an example of why Goog's search algorithms (and others') should be open: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3268371

A subtle attack may be by making bots stop indexing it or using SEO practices to lower it enough so it would become unsearchable, and therefore, non-existent.

Or just crack into Google...

> In the real world where not everyone is a programmer people don't feel restricted by proprietary software. Only in some hypothetical ivory tower manned by RMS are non-developers restricted by proprietary things.

This is irrespective and has nothing to do with the point. I can figure out tons of adjectives to """describe""" you. Also, I don't know why people think their reality is "the real world" and extrapolates it to others' "real worlds".

It is not about being a dev or not, it's about a system which someone relies on (even a society with Google) and ensuring its continuity and the best for all. If you ensure it, people will recognize your work and the money will come.

> While writing that list of open source software I use, I realized that only Emacs and GCC are GPL. Why is it that the most popular open source software is not GPL licensed? If the GPL encourages and fosters collaboration why is the MIT, BSD, and MPL licensed software more active and popular? It almost seems as if removing the restrictions from the GPL encourages collaboration. The Linux kernel is a notable exception, so I'm not saying this is 100% true, but the evidence seems to support it in many cases.

A software is "good" independent of its license. Licenses don't fix bugs. If you measure by adoption, then you should conclude that Visual Studio is what has encouraged most of the software developing in the past - and I think it's true, but hasn't to do with licensing and business models.

Your evidence supports that many licenses are being used, and that's a good thing. If you want to do things because many people does them, then you should adopt the Chinese culture. We have a phrase here: "Eat Shit: Trillions of flies can't be wrong." (this is not about Chinesse culture, they have outstanding good things and others not so good).

It took about 10 years to the industry to understand that they could earn money with open source software. It was very hard to try to explain someone that he could do better with a different model. Now that the industry has "internalize" it, everybody loves open source. AGPL is the next step: there is room for improvement and you will probably (IMO) do better with a more sustainable model.

If your marketshare is based on amount of resources, then your position is sustained by entry barriers, not your skills.

If someone can gather the resources and do better than you, then it's better for all the market - not just you. What you do with AGPL is making sure that if it is based on your knowledge, you will be able to improve from who has already improved from you.

If you can't stand someone to do better than you and you can't learn from him, then you have personal issues - and those are holding back everyone. There is nothing bad in not being the best (I think is bad measuring success on money and market share, that's circumstancial) and if you are not willing to improve, then you are in the wrong place.

The same applies (IMO) to patents and industrial secrets. A patent is "public" industrial secret: while you know it, you must act as you wouldn't unless you pay. I think that is for lazy people, they want money for an idea from people who actually implement it - work. Open source is a good example about this.

A free market relies on perfect informatios on whatever technology is being used, otherwise, there is no real competition in the supply and you might end up with a captive demand.

Yes, most business models would need to adapted to this, it is not what most of the markets do. Think of the Nuclear Power Plant market (to be extreme and explain my view). There won't be many suppliers because of the activity, if you totally "opensource" the industry, you will still be buying plants and paying a lot of money - but you will be "safer" because you rely on it.

The same applies to software, there are big players who are willing to outsource and pay more (because is out of their core business or just don't have interests on the topic) if the supplier fully opens and doesn't lock in them. You will end up on a better and "fairer" position.

As we say here, "your freedom ends where others' start". You are not forcing anyone to distribute the software or do whatever they want to as long as you respect others' freedom.

What you are doing is not giving the power to restrict others if you distribute it so you keep it flowing. The only way of achieving freedom and equality is (IMO) to equally distribute power on all, so you will end up with the phrase at the beginning.

If you want to use that sense of "restriction", it is restricting power, not freedom. Restricting power is granting others their freedom.