The analogy breaks down for most things outside of software (even hardware, to a degree), because the basis for the argument in favor of free software is the four freedoms[1], which are themselves mere extensions of the rights of purchase.
If you sell me something, you cannot tell me that I can't modify it for my own use, for example. You as the seller can't tell me that I'm not allowed to resell my textbooks, or to modify the frames on my eyeglasses, or to hire my friend to fix my vacuum cleaner.
Proprietary software licenses do do that - the main difference is that is a non-rivalrous good; I can redistribute software without losing access to it myself. Because of that, people think it's somehow 'wrong' to say that I should be allowed to purchase a program and then resell it to another person, but if you look at it the other way, that's no more 'wrong' than purchasing a physical good and then reselling it.
In the South, it used to be common to sell property on the condition that the purchaser never sell it to a black person (I think they still used the term
Negro or 'colored' then). If I remember correctly, that was first deemed illegal in certain parts not because it's horribly racist, but because it violates the principles of first sale: you've sold me something, and now you can't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with it.
Textbooks and eyeglasses are guarded by copyright and patents. I cannot improve on the design of Oakley sunglasses and hire a firm to manufacture them. I can modify it for myself, but that is a much more limited form of freedom. Microsoft probably wouldn't care if I somehow reverse engineered Windows and modified it for myself only.
Same goes for architecture. When I buy a house, I can make modifications to it. But I don't think I have the right to hire construction companies to build new houses based on the design.
Electronics and car companies guard heavily the schematics and designs that makes it possible to repair their products much less reproduce them.
Edit - One more thing:
Just the ability to modify something you own (like textbooks or sunglasses) does not make it free. For example, I've made many modifications to OS X through utilities and configuration. The fact that OS X doesn't come with source code is equivalent to Textbooks not coming with their LaTeX source.
> Textbooks and eyeglasses are guarded by copyright and patent
I'm talking about the physical book, not the words contained within.
> When I buy a house, I can make modifications to it.
When I buy software, I should be able to make modifications to it.
> Microsoft probably wouldn't care if I somehow reverse engineered Windows and modified it for myself only.
That's explicitly prohibited by the license. Whether or not you think they'll enforce the license in your case has no bearing over the fact that it does violate it, and free software advocates argue that such licenses cannot be nonenforceable.
In any case, patents are a separate issue altogether. So is copyright, actually - free software licenses are a way of twisting current copyright law into doing the opposite of what it was meant to do: provide freedom.
Let's take a step back and look at the goals of free software. It's not just to modify and tweak things I own, it's to allow me to modify, enhance and contribute that work back to the community.
By that yardstick, most textbooks and eyeglasses are not free.
I can't improve a textbook and put it online. I can't put my improved sunglasses on the market (even if it was non-profit).
So why are people revolted by a copywrited and patented (hence unfree) OS, but have no qualms using other non-free products?
Personally, I think free and proprietary products can co-exist. Both models produce innovations which ultimately benefit society.
> By that yardstick, most textbooks and eyeglasses are not free. I can't improve a textbook .... I can't put my improved sunglasses on the market (even if it was non-profit).
Yes you can - the product in that case is physical, not digital. You can certainly turn the pages of a book into an origami creation and sell that on a secondary market if that's what you want to do. You can sell modified copies of physical products to your heart's content.
Quick aside, there are still (in NZ at least) various conditions that you can attach to property sales. For example, if your property had some native rainforest on it, you could state to whomever you sell it to that they are not allowed to mess with that part of the land (e.g. chop trees down), and whenever they onsell they must also make that a condition of sale.
Yes, though the justification behind those are the negative externalities for society at large; ie, destroying a rainforest/killing off an endangered species, etc. And even then, they're limited. (They have them in the US too - homeowners' associations are an example).
But outside of real estate, I can't think of any analogous practice outside the information market - you don't sell me a book on the condition that I not loan it to a friend, write notes in the margins, or even burn it.
> natural logistical limitations for copying and improvement.
There's also a marginal cost beyond the first unit, whereas for software, there is none.
> I cannot OCR a paper book I own, make modifications to it and then publish it on the web.
You'd be violating a copyright, which is a separate point of discussion, but I'm talking about the physical book itself. You've sold me a bunch of paper bound together, and I'm allowed to modify (or destroy) it, as well as resell it to someone else.
If you sell me something, you cannot tell me that I can't modify it for my own use, for example. You as the seller can't tell me that I'm not allowed to resell my textbooks, or to modify the frames on my eyeglasses, or to hire my friend to fix my vacuum cleaner.
Proprietary software licenses do do that - the main difference is that is a non-rivalrous good; I can redistribute software without losing access to it myself. Because of that, people think it's somehow 'wrong' to say that I should be allowed to purchase a program and then resell it to another person, but if you look at it the other way, that's no more 'wrong' than purchasing a physical good and then reselling it.
In the South, it used to be common to sell property on the condition that the purchaser never sell it to a black person (I think they still used the term Negro or 'colored' then). If I remember correctly, that was first deemed illegal in certain parts not because it's horribly racist, but because it violates the principles of first sale: you've sold me something, and now you can't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with it.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html