Or is it possible that the freedom to tinker--like most other kinds of freedom--benefit innovation, creativity, and consumers?

That may be the case Tim, but you are taking a rather extreme view.

Your reasoning seems to suggest that because the freedom to tinker is important, that it should not be deterred or qualified in any way, or balanced with other copyright policy considerations that would also be conducive to innovation.

My aim in this post was to point out that some justifications for the GPL arise from the natural rights perspective, and taken to the extreme, these natural rights arguments seem far removed from concerns for innovation, creativity and consumers. I was not arguing that the freedom to tinker is not important at all.

"An interesting aspect of their discussion is the implicit argument by Lee that the GPL preserves various privileges with software that are akin to natural rights."

You are missing exactly one important point here: Tim is saying that the GPL preserves those rights only for a certain class of software, that is software which is part of the GPL ecosystem. Other software licensing regimes do not preserves those rights, and we will see how the GPL ecosystem continues to grow.

"He suggests that copyright policy should, formost, preserve developers' freedom to tinker."

Well, there is a conflation going on here.

One, the issue of whether copyright policy should somehow recognize that subset of software published under the GPL, and adopt policy to that reality. There is no reason why this should not happen, and is hardly an extreme position. If you look at the way plant patents arose, clearly there was interaction between market realities and the legal structure. Or the way patents on radio technology were broken in order to create the possibility for new products. (to be sure these developments were influenced by War necessities, occassioned by World War I)

Second, the issue is whether this fredom to tinker should not be generaly protected, and that isn't an extreme position either, especially after horrible decisions such as Blizzard v BnetD, and the DMCA which have both eaten away at freedoms which were available before.

Enigma, Tim takes an extremist position because his policy views (to repeal the DMCA, to eliminate software) aim at propagating the GPL's moral agenda.

Tim's comment above is beyond meaningless. What kind of freedom does not benefit consumers, innovation and creativity? But the freedom to tinker, as espoused by Tim, differs from other kinds of freedoms; and that is also its drawback.

Tim provides no qualification for his views on free software. Even software patents supporters admit that patent quality is important, even those who support the DMCA are critical about the importance of reverse engineering. But free software, to its strongest supporters, has no such qualification; because to them, free software, has moral value.

"Tim provides no qualification for his views on free software."

I love how you put words into my mouth by attributing "implicit arguments" to me, and then criticize those implicit arguments for their lack of nuance.

Tim, I've always engaged you whenever you claimed that I misrepresented your views. However, here, I did not. I've never seen you write anything other than your unconditional support for free software.

I'm not even sure what it means to have "unconditional support" for free software. I think free software is great, just as I think iPods and Google Maps, and lots of other types of technology are great. I don't think my enthusiasm for free software makes me an "extremist" any more than my enthusiasm for my iPod does.

Tim, your views on free software are similar to your positions on interop and decentralization, which are concepts and innovation models rather than discrete products like the iPod and Google Maps.

With free software, interop and decentralization, you follow the reasoning of "the more the better." You are right that these are important, I agree with you to some extent, but I don't see you balance them with any other considerations.

Economists have written on how proliferation of free software may create more concentration in the technology industries, on how increased decentralization may reduce innovation. I have not see how widespread interop can be said to be bad for innovation, but there is no reason to think that a certain level of fragmentation is bad for innovation.

Oh Tim, why haven't you commented on my DRM citizenship post. I'd be interested in your thoughts.