RDY: flying in the face of cap. -was- Re:Belinda is concerned --

[Lloyd Budd]

On 16-Mar-04, at 21:38, Michael Wilson wrote:

Hi Michael, I appreciate your thorough reply.  I think
Paul DiRezze's response is good.  I had already
drafted the email below.  Enjoy ;-)

> I am referring to profit driven software
> companies that feel incredibly threatened by
> opensource software.
Ok, I do not think that is the same thing as saying that
"opensource flies in the face of capitalism."

I think there is no doubt that opensource "flies in the
face of" the status quo.


> It is apparent by the public
> stance that many companies have taken against
> opensource. Obviously companies like Microsoft feel
> threatened by opensource, and they should.
Only if they are unwilling to adapt.  Capitalism "is" the
individual's right and objective to be as profitable
as possible.  It is within an individual's right to do
everything "justly" possible to resist loss of profit.  It is
within another  individual's right to do everything
possible to be profitable.
-- how is that for recursion ;-)

> It provides
> faster, more easliy customizable business platforms,
> and all for free.
What do mean by faster? Is there evidence that supports
that OS is producing more easily customizable business
platforms?  AFAIK most money is going into proprietary
business platforms.

> Capitalist societies are profit driven and it has long
> been held that profits drive technological innovation.
> Yet Opensource threatens to destabilize the profit
> driven business model of software companies as Linux
> becomes more pervasive in business applications.
Yet it does not threaten capitalism.

>  I dont think that profit driven companies are just going
> to lay down and die, and I also do not think that
> Opensource will be able to remain in its current
> state.
I do not think that you have established that Opensource
is contrary to profit driven companies.  I think you have
established that OS is disagreeable to a number of
capitalistic companies, and they will fight for their
profitability.


> It has been widely proposed that some sort of hybrid
> between opensource and proprietary software will
> emerge in the coming years, in what form, I do not
> know.
widely "proposed"?  I think it is generally accepted that such
a model has emerged and will continue to be established,
eventually reach equilibrium.  If any thing this "proves" that
OS does NOT fly in the face of capitalism.

> The biggest anti-GPLers are clearly against the clause
> in the license that states that any code added to a
> GPLed product must distributed under the GPL as well.
> From a capitalist perspective this would be considered
> theft of intellectual property,
Theft? You have lost me here.

> Profit driven corporations ...  that wealth
> as it relates to capitalism is monetary,
This is a basic tenant of "all" economics systems.
> and that with
> an ever growing number of corporations turning to
> Linux and the GPL,
GNU meaning of free (GPL) is not equivalent to
Open Source.

>  profit driven software companies are left in the dust.
Can you provide examples of profit driven corporations
arguing this?  I think what most argue against is governments
interfering with the "free market".

> A capitalist-open source hybrid is being attempted by
> companies like Novell, IBM, and Borland who are trying
> to find out how to make a profit from Linux (3).
Trying? IBM and HP claims to make a large profit from Linux.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml