More MS FUD

[Linux]

Trent,

You write a very interesting article here.

As I read it I realized that  greed causes greed.

If I am of limited means and all I have is a loaf of bread and I share it
with my friend and we are both satisfied that is a good thing.  Now my bread
is gone and I have nothing.  The next day while I am again hungry, it is my
friend's good fortune to have a rather large sub sandwich.  He does not
share it with me or even worse he wants some of my mustard to put on it.  He
is satisfied by eating only half the sandwich and saves the other half for
the next day.  Later that day the pizza angel delivers me an 18 inch pizza.
This is way too much for me, (not really I made that part up) so I eat some
of it and save some of it for later, or tomorrow.  I do not want to share
because I will be giving away what I have with no assurance that I will have
food to eat later or tomorrow and I have learned that others will not
necessarily share.

So what happens.  I realize that I am self reliant so I must horde as much
wealth as I can.  The cycle begins.

I would submit to you that GREED is part of what makes up the great old US
of A.

I believe sharing is a law of the universe that works like this.  As you
share it will be rewarded upon you in greater quantity.  It is a seed time
and harvest law.

Example: You plant 10 corn seed and more than likely you will harvest a
number of ears of corn that contain hundreds of corn seed.

Open Source has taught me about sharing.  I've often wondered how this model
works for those who do all the development.  I'm guessing it works out to be
some very powerful advertising and they get regular invitations to do
consulting at better than average fees.  I would guess the developers can
ask for and get $150 on up per hour, and get to work on some really cool
projects.

Oh by the way I don't think anyone will be able to outlaw Open Source
because if I own something I am free to give it away with restrictions.
Isn't this exactly what a will does?  Would that not make a will unlawful or
unenforceable?

Keith




From: "Trent Shipley" <tshipley@symbio-tech.com>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
Subject: RE: More MS FUD
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 12:12:54 -0700
Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us

The main FUD I see in this is the unwarranted attack on GPL.  In fact,
putting code under a GPL license is voluntary and the private property model
that Craig Mundie defends implies the legality of something like GPL.
(However, there is no _per se_ reason a sweeping and viral contract like GPL
could not be made illegal.  It might even make good sense to disallow viral
clauses in intellectual property right contracts, but then it would apply to
greedy contracts as well as public welfare contracts like GPL.)

There is also the valorization of greed.  But that is nothing new.  Craig
Mundie makes the mistake that since the vice of greed can be harnessed to
produce good, greed itself is therefore virtuous.  This is total rot, but I
have never met a successful entrepreneur who didn't believe it.  Successful
entrepreneurs and even more executives hold themselves in high regard.  (If
they didn't they wouldn't be nearly so successful.)  This means it is hard
to be as greedy as these domineering robber barons and believe that greed is
an anti-social vice.

However, the central assumptions, that open source is a poor model for
making money and that greed has to be harnessed to progress for there to be
significant progress is correct.  To make money there must be scarcity.  To
raise capital for R & D it must be possible to make intellectual goods
scarce.  In a state of nature, intellectual goods are essentially free.
Therefore, if there is to be research, development, or even publication,
intellectual goods must be made scarce.  The public winds up being a net
winner.  The collective looses free access to any given intellectual
artifact.  The gain is that there are many, many, many more intellectuals
artifacts produced in a given amount of time when the producers of
intellectual artifacts can turn intellect into a means of satisfying the
base instincts of capitalists . . . and of intellectual workers.

Hell, I wouldn't think about working with these socially sterile #$%@
glorified abacuses if I didn't think I had a change of making more money
than doing just about anything else.
      (OK. I wouldn't work with them nearly as much, an expensive hobby
maybe, but that's about it.)