[Reader-list] IBM frees 500 software patents

[Aarti]

Dear All,

Thank you for an interesting discussion on the rights and wrongs of open 
source and the possible pitfalls ..I am not sure what exactly you mean 
by it being a "better" capitalist strategy. A better capitalist strategy 
for what? I'm assuming to make profit. But thats what enterprise is 
about. The point, I would imagine, is that as long the source code is 
out there for everyone to use, modify, distribute as they deem fit, the 
same freedom then also extends to IBM. If IBM wishes to develop 
proprietary extensions on OSS platforms which users wish to buy, good 
luck to IBM. But equally, open source allows you and thousands of coders 
and developers to customise software solutions for users and charge for it.

I am not sure what you mean by 'amplifying exisisting inequality'. I 
mean I know what you mean as a general principle which is that the more 
powerful will be able to make better and more eficient use of existing 
commonly held resources. But this is true of almost anything one can 
think of and by itself is not a very interesting observation. By this I 
dont mean to suggest that questions of acess deriving from real social 
and economic inequality are not important. But perhaps we need to think 
of different ways of approaching those questions rather than working 
with strict "if its good for capitalism it must be bad for us" binaries.

best
Aarti







Oli wrote:

> Thank you Pankaj,
>
> yes, there's nothing wrong about your arguments. And it is possible 
> that my point is not interesting for you. But still:
>
> What if Open Source is a competitive advantage; the *better* 
> capitalist strategy?
>
> And yes: the basic idea of sharing the code is untouched. But as we 
> (those, who share the code) are not all in the same economic/social 
> situation (e.g. IBM and me), Open Source works as an amplifier of 
> already existing inequalities. You claim Open Source to be neutral to 
> its surroundings. And I think this focus is too small. Technology and 
> its policies always relate strongly on society and player in the society.
>
> I do not think that isolating the GPL from society and economical 
> relations is a helpful step. The Public Domain is not a good concept, 
> when some are able to use it to improve their leadership, what we are 
> exactly facing with IBM. That's my simple point. Sharing between 
> unequal parties: thats what open source promotes, when being 
> contextualized in social and economical sourroundings.
>
> Oh yes, everyone should get paid! And thank you again for promoting 
> the GNU perspective.
>
> -oli
>
> --On Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:57:07 +0530 Pankaj kaushal 
> <penguinhead at linux-delhi.org> wrote:
>
>> Oli wrote:
>>
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So, open source is not innocent. It's a tool being used more and more
>>> for competitive advantage. How does the 'open source community' react?
>>> Is this an issue and for whom?
>>
>>
>> What exactly is innocence? Work for free? Not earning money? Not
>> earning lots of money? What is the problem with lots of big
>> companies using free software and making money out of free software?
>> The code is still available for you and me with the same basic
>> freedoms[1]. Is that not the idea?
>>
>> If IBM were to put some 'paid' developers to work on eclipse, what
>> would happen? what difference would it make? None. The idea is for
>> the software to be available in the public domain. Who is writing
>> or supporting the software is not important. If I do it because
>> I am motivated or I need that software myself or that I am getting
>> paid to write does not make a difference as long as the software is
>> free[2].
>>
>> I believe it is good for the free software developers to find big
>> companies showing interest in free software. It would just mean more
>> and more developers will be working full time on their hobby projects
>> and how can that be bad for the developers or the quality of the
>> software?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>> [2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>>
>> -- 
>> Morality is heard instinct in the individual.
>>     -- Nietzsche.
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>