[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:58:01 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) |
Stephen> Tom, as far as I can see your claim that Canonical exploits
Stephen> you by using your *previously released* software is
Stephen> equivalent to the counterclaim that you want to exploit
Stephen> Mr. S's business acumen by sharing in his *past* revenue
Stephen> streams (Canonical is not yet above water AFAIK).
That is not quite my claim, as I believe I've said. My claim is a
little subtle, so I understand your confusion. To simplify a bit:
* "ex-ploit (v): to make use of selfishly or unethically" [1]
1. I claim that the behavior of Canonical's agents caused unjust harm
to me personally and to a public project. This claim is not
equivalent to a legal claim, of course. So, part of what I am
saying is that, morally, Canonical should work to find
mutually agreeable ways of compensating for that harm.
If you want to fit that into your economic analysis, think
about how to measure the economic value of being a community
member in good standing. (As I put it to Mark, "Replace your
divots!" -- an ethical principle of The Commons if ever there
was one.)
2. I claim that there is more to a free software project than
simply the sequence of tar-bundles containing source code
releases. Much of what "else" there is is very abstract:
allocations of attention, intellectual momentum, group dynamics,
etc. Though fragile and difficult to delineate, those "other"
elements are where the true value resides -- it is analogous to
a portion of the "health" of the commons. It is the state
of the groundskeepers and gardners. To the extent one grazes
one's cattle on the commons, one has a social responsibility to
protect that groundskeeper/gardner state.
Aside: "Always motivate from the positive," is the wisest sales and
marketing advice (and among the wisest general life advice) I've
ever heard. Well, there is figure and ground, no? Can not one
emphasize the figure (the positive) by darkening the ground?
Sometimes it seems necessary.
* "ex-ploit (v): to employ to the greatest possible advantage; utilize" [1]
You start burbling about "*previously released* software" and I am
disappointed to find you stuck in an overly simplistic economic
model.
Yes, of course, the bits in a tar bundle of free software non-rival
but that is almost exactly the least interesting thing one could say
about them.
From the corporate perspective, the free software world is comprised
not of tar bundles but of projects. The business opportunities
arising as a result of the existence of those projects are quite
rival. The set of projects is a scarce but renewable resource.
The vitality of that resource of projects depends in no small
part on the economic value of taking the risk of starting one.
Having recognized that he obtained value for what I had already done,
in my project, Mark would have simply been *wise* to bet *for* *rather
than invest against* my *future work*.
-t
[1] "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language",
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981
P.S.: Minor points
Thomas> I was, in my view, offered money to create a hostile fork
Thomas> of my own project
Stephen> Apt description. So Mr. S showed you the respect due to
Stephen> a potential competitor who could be a big advantage if
Stephen> converted to an ally. I really think it's unbecoming of
Stephen> you to deny that (implicitly). It *is* respect for your
Stephen> expertise.
No, no -- the ethical principal in my family is that yes, you *may*
respect the *expertise* but *certainly* you must respect the *man*.
I suppose that in economic terms the explanation comes from the fact
that the respect for the man inspires, at the very least, future
experts to create themselves.
Stephen> Oh, come on. "Software is forever."
Nonsense. Sheer, utter, nonsense. Well... most of the time.
Nearly all of the time. With some exceptions. In theory. Maybe.
-t
- 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, 2006/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame, Andrew Suffield, 2006/04/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame,
Thomas Lord <=
- [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