[Reader-list] IBM frees 500 software patents

[Pankaj kaushal]

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:

It is not that it does not interest me. It is that, I do not understand 
the point.

> What if Open Source is a competitive advantage; the *better* capitalist 
> strategy?

What of it then?

> 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.

Yes, I share code with IBM, IBM gets a competitive advantage against
who? HP? maybe. HP starts using free software too. Who gets hurt? No
one. The Software is in the public domain. IBM starts selling it for
$5000. I can start packaging it on a cd and sell it for 50 bucks a
piece or give away for free. Hell, I can visit door to door and install
it for everyone who is interested for free.

The code is available for everyone, why should IBM be excluded just
because they have a lot of money? I give code for free, Should I expect
IBM to start giving away supercomputers for free?

Besides, no one is forcing anyone to give away their software for free.
You are all invited to write your software under restrictive lie-senses.
here[1] use this.

> 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.

I do not think that shaving razors are helpful devices. A razor is not a
good concept when some are able to use it to cut themselves, what we are
exactly facing with suicidal people. Thats my simple point, Suicide:
thats what Razors promote when being contextualized in depressed and
young humans.

Restriction of sharing between unequal parties will only promote
inequality. will it not? no matter which context you contextualize it
in. The socio-politico-choco-moco-extra-cheese jargon does not drive
home any point. I am sorry.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

Pankaj
-- 
Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.