Tuesday, March 09, 2004
More Conversations with Eric Raymond, Part 5
> I'm in agreement with you here. I would oppose any
> law that
> restricted the freedom of programmers and users to
> make whatever kind
> of contract they can negotiate, whether open-source
> or closed.
But, you might support laws which favor open source
over proprietary software in government procurement.
I disagree with that, too.
> Really? Then why do good restaurants often sell a
> recipe book (for a
> price that is nominal relative to any figure you
> might assign to the
> secrecy value of the recipes) at the cash register?
Not all do, though, and we are starting to dive into
the weakness of the "recipe" analogy. A recipe is
relatively simple, and it's a LOT easier to figure out
what goes into a dish made by a competing restaurant.
Not so software. Giving away the source code to
software is giving away a LOT more than what a
restaurant gives away.
> Until you can answer that question, and explain how
> this case is
> similar and how it differs from open-source
> software, your grasp of
> the economics of open source is too weak for you to
> be writing about
> it.
I'm going to change my email name to "leave weapons at
the door." You seem really keen to convince me that I
have no right to debate you on this.
> I'm mostly with you rather than Richard here. Some
> proprietary software companies do scheme to keep
> users
> helpless and divided, but most are simply following
> the profit motive without intending to divide
> anybody.
>
> One of the weaknesses of the idealist/moralist
> stance is
> a near-compulsion to believe that one's opponents
> have
> base motives. Richard, alas, has this in spades.
But you SOUND like you consider the profit motive as
somehow "less" than the motive to donate software to
the open source cause. I don't think it is. Consider
the profit motive among entrepreneurs simply to be the
motivation to be free of having to rely on ANYBODY for
your income. That's a noble goal.
You can do a LOT of really neat things when you don't
have to worry about finding a job. That's not
"selfish."
> I'm in agreement with you here. I would oppose any
> law that
> restricted the freedom of programmers and users to
> make whatever kind
> of contract they can negotiate, whether open-source
> or closed.
But, you might support laws which favor open source
over proprietary software in government procurement.
I disagree with that, too.
> Really? Then why do good restaurants often sell a
> recipe book (for a
> price that is nominal relative to any figure you
> might assign to the
> secrecy value of the recipes) at the cash register?
Not all do, though, and we are starting to dive into
the weakness of the "recipe" analogy. A recipe is
relatively simple, and it's a LOT easier to figure out
what goes into a dish made by a competing restaurant.
Not so software. Giving away the source code to
software is giving away a LOT more than what a
restaurant gives away.
> Until you can answer that question, and explain how
> this case is
> similar and how it differs from open-source
> software, your grasp of
> the economics of open source is too weak for you to
> be writing about
> it.
I'm going to change my email name to "leave weapons at
the door." You seem really keen to convince me that I
have no right to debate you on this.
> I'm mostly with you rather than Richard here. Some
> proprietary software companies do scheme to keep
> users
> helpless and divided, but most are simply following
> the profit motive without intending to divide
> anybody.
>
> One of the weaknesses of the idealist/moralist
> stance is
> a near-compulsion to believe that one's opponents
> have
> base motives. Richard, alas, has this in spades.
But you SOUND like you consider the profit motive as
somehow "less" than the motive to donate software to
the open source cause. I don't think it is. Consider
the profit motive among entrepreneurs simply to be the
motivation to be free of having to rely on ANYBODY for
your income. That's a noble goal.
You can do a LOT of really neat things when you don't
have to worry about finding a job. That's not
"selfish."
