[Reader-list] IBM frees 500 software patents

[Oli]

Dear All,

<snip>
> 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.

The difference between the GPL and 'anything one can think of' is that the 
GPL is precisely written to keep code open and accessible in response to 
proprietary software. The GPL, so to say, has reflected upon the 
problematic Public Domain-concept, where everyone is free to take and sell 
as a 'private good', determined only by your economic power. And what we 
face now is how capital adapts to  a policy initially made as an answer to 
commodified code. This, I'd say, it is a real interesting and contempory 
step capital takes, which should not just commented as: so what? as more or 
less everyone here did.


I can not see, where I have raised the very strong binary you mention, 
Aarti, just by problematizing, or simply mentioning the competitive 
advantage through open source code.

cheers,
Oli





>
> 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/>
>
>
>
>