[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame
Stephen J. Turnbull
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame
Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:33:21 +0900
Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux)
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
Thomas> When you come across an expert in some topic that
Thomas> interests you, you act with respect towards that expert.
Stephen> They offered you money, did they not?
Thomas> Not to work on GNU Arch. Not in any way to continue
Thomas> working on the project. Indeed, to spend 40hrs/wk
Thomas> specifically *not* working on GNU Arch. It was "conceded"
Thomas> (for it could not be legally prohibited, at least in
Thomas> California) that if Canonical happened to release GPLed
Thomas> software that would be useful in GNU Arch, I would be
Thomas> free, after hours, to contribute a merge of that to GNU
So far, this is the description that Uli Drepper gave me of his
relationship with Red Hat. I don't see this as an unreasonable
opening offer from a business standpoint, nor do I find it
unreasonable that you would reject it.
Thomas> I would, though, be required to write code for Canonical
Thomas> which would not be released.
I'd be astonished if you accepted that. I think you *should* have,
taken the money, and got out as soon as your financial situation
stabilized, but I'm not surprised you didn't. Nor would I consider it
bad faith on your side; you were offered money for labor, you take it,
when the money is no longer sufficient, you stop. No ethical problem.
Thomas> I was, in my view, offered money to create a hostile fork
Thomas> of my own project
Apt description. So Mr. S showed you the respect due to a potential
competitor who could be a big advantage if converted to an ally. I
really think it's unbecoming of you to deny that (implicitly). It
*is* respect for your expertise.
He did not show you the personal respect of finding out "who Tom Lord
is" and what you stand for. Or maybe he did know, and was just
grandstanding; we'll never know, I suppose.
Thomas> At the time I interviewed with them, I came away with the
Thomas> strong impression that the Canonical goal would be to
Thomas> optimize arch for centralizing development within a single
Thomas> organization -- the very antithesis of what Arch is about.
Thomas> Subsequent development at Canonical has only strengthened
Thomas> my belief in that opinion.
Sounds like a plan to me. One I would not want to participate in, one
that I would warn people I hack with against, but not one that I could
tell someone thinking to buy stock "that will never fly." It might.
Heck, it already has. It's called "the GNU Project", whose holding
company owns more software than Canonical ever will. Sure, GNU is
non-commercial. But if you look at the form ... hey, it could work as
a business, too.
I do not see any win-win here by Canonical giving up that game plan,
if indeed that's what they aimed at.
Thomas> the theme that "Tom is just being stubborn. See, we're
Thomas> happy to make that change! So switch to our fork!" Like
Thomas> all good shaggy dog stories, their fork simply peters out
Thomas> at the end.
As a way of discrediting Tom, this looks an awful lot like Canonical
developers making what they honestly considered a "better Arch" to me.
I think you should stop looking for conspiracies *everywhere*, and
limit your paranoia to the people who really are out to get you.
FWIW, I still think you *were* mostly just being stubborn. Sure, on
almost all of the disagreements I saw your point, and it would have
cost you a lot of skull sweat to come up with a viable compromise in
each case, but the upside would have been making tla the clear Genuine
GNU Arch, "and already in the stores, too".
Thomas> As you may recall, mere weeks before Canonical arrived on
Thomas> the scene, we began work on distributed bug databases,
Thomas> patch queues, review queues, testing queues, etc. This
Thomas> was, in fact, the first work to be hopelessly disrupted by
Thomas> the move of initial employees to Canonical.
Oh, come on. "Software is forever." Nothing is hopeless, in that
sense, unless you throw away the CDs with your archives on them.
And (as I already pointed out) this disruption is a necessary side
effect of reallocation of rival resources from one use to another.
Even if you have independent evidence of non-free-software
motivations, all you can say about this is that movement of resources
has an unfortunate effect on the losing project. Your public-spirited
motivations do not bind Mr. S legally or ethically.
Thomas> The differences between the infrastructure I was proposing
Thomas> and what Canonical wanted are subtle. It is a question of
Thomas> design, not of the amount of work it takes.
Of course, I never meant to contest your same-cost argument.
Thomas> Moreover, Canonical could have achieved the same work-flow
Thomas> they exhibit today using my infrastructure ideas rather
Thomas> than theirs and using public rather than private code.
Thomas> Ubuntu would still exist in much the same as the current
Thomas> form. There would just be a more thoughtful
Thomas> infrastructure in the production pipeline.
If your thesis about their aim is correct, what you are proposing is
that they play deliberately for a draw, possibly a loss. That is not
good business strategy; I do not see why they should consider your
proposal a win for them compared to the conjectured strategy of
creating a "developer portal" at Canonical.
Thomas> What a waste.
Possibly. But so is betting on any of the horses that don't win.
Thomas> The exploitation can be observed in the relative benefits
Thomas> received in the complex interactions that took place,
Thomas> compared to the many alternatives that were available and
Thomas> in light of intentions and actions.
Boiled down to the essentials, "he's rich, I want some of that."
Tom, as far as I can see your claim that Canonical exploits you by
using your *previously released* software is equivalent to the
counterclaim that you want to exploit Mr. S's business acumen by
sharing in his *past* revenue streams (Canonical is not yet above
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Thomas Lord, 2006/04/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Thomas Lord, 2006/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Andrew Suffield, 2006/04/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Andrew Suffield, 2006/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Thomas Lord, 2006/04/04
- [Gnu-arch-users] Exploitation defined [was: top posting and flame], Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Exploitation defined [was: top posting and flame], Andrew Suffield, 2006/04/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Exploitation defined, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Exploitation defined [was: top posting and flame], Thomas Lord, 2006/04/06
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Exploitation defined, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Exploitation defined, Miles Bader, 2006/04/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Exploitation defined, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/04/14