Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
You haven't even cracked the GNU manifesto, have you? You don't know that the out-of-U.S. Asian market for OSS is huge, while Microsoft is in a stall there because people prefer that flexibility that OSS brings and can't afford the rigid Microsoft structure. You can't even seem to conceptualize the notion that programmers could profit from customizing open source programs, which is why the OSS movement has done so well in economies where personal service ability is the only intellectual property that is defended at all.
Worse, you elevate the 2 richest men in the world over the idea that their elevation should be part of the upward march of humanity; what has kept them growing ever richer is a lock on a product that should have been open to the public long ago, both in my view and that of the founders, so that the public could take it, use it, and improve upon it. Inventors are allowed to take a profit, but the purpose of patent law is that eventually humanity should be able to profit by their works, too. If Eli Whitney had nothing but apologists like you around way back when, the cotton gin would still be proprietary and we'd be begging for sackcloth.
As to your 'example' of Apache as something awful, gee, I guess nobody makes any money off Apache. That's terrible. Oh, wait, THOUSANDS of people do. They're called webmasters. People can choose the one that is right for their web site. That to me is a free market. Evidently you define any system which produces the world's two richest men as a free market. I'm not sure which is the better definition but I bet more people would agree with me than you.
And here's a question for you, since you fail to grasp the notion of capitalism generally: what is so wrong with people working voluntarily on a project and giving the fruits of their labors away, even in a society where generally that isn't the standard practice? Guess we should ban Habitat for Humanity next, or just outlaw volunteerism. In that case, you'd better look out, since you've given us all your opinion for nothing.
Wait. Now you're referring to their actually existing and titled "manifesto" to deny these guys are communists? Hysterical! Exactly why I come to these threads, if you told others people like this existed they wouldn't believe it.
The rest of your post seems to be a rant against inventors of all kinds who don't give their inventions away "for the good of humanity". So just as I figured, free software isn't where you guys stop begging for free goods, it's obviously only the beginning.
So where is it you are supposedly "in exile", right here in the US? Must be, since your philosophies seem to be completely contrary to the American Dream.
Your whole rebuttal to the Stallman statement is a Beavis and Butthead-esque 'he said manifesto!' Your response to my explanation of the purpose of America's IP protection in the first place, and thus my support for OSS, is to discount the purpose of the Founders as some sort of rant. Your final words are just an insulting exposition without any support.
You are a fine example of why the open source movement can do nothing but increase its adherents. With advocates like you for the Microsoft/proprietary crowd, it seems rather unlikely that anyone will be converted in your direction. You really do need to climb back in the sandbox with the other toddlers before you play with the big kids.
Oh please. You're trying to gain the intellectual high ground, yet refuse to admit the hilarious irony of someone saying "He's not a communist, really. Read his "Manifesto"."? And by the way, of course we've seen it. Typical "Manifesto".
We're just not going to agree. I believe open source is an attack on business, and tears down our borders. You appear to believe it's good for humanity, and why would you need borders in Utopia. At least it's been civil, have a good evening.
Every group has its fringe radicals. RMS is OSS's supreme fringe radical. Yet, you knowingly associate anyone and anything involved with OSS to be automatically and fully involved with supporting RMS--which is a fallacy in itself, as evidenced in many other OSS threads.
"We've" seen it? Are you assuming the royal "we" now? And I don't find this manifesto anything like Marx's work. Maybe you should reread that if you've forgotten how anti-capitalist a manifesto can be. And by the way, contrary to your implication that it is a Communist Manifesto redux, Stallman spends roughly half the document rebutting the idea that capitalism will be offed by GNU. I didn't say the man wasn't a commie or even wasn't a socialist--I just said that, based on the GNU manifesto, he certainly seems to have addressed concerns like yours that free software would be inherently un-capitalist.
We're just not going to agree. I believe open source is an attack on business, and tears down our borders. You appear to believe it's good for humanity, and why would you need borders in Utopia. At least it's been civil, have a good evening.
I don't know where this borders stuff comes from, but I don't see how OSS would be any worse than Microsoft at "tearing down our borders." If the problem with OSS is that other countries use it, Microsoft is at least as prevalent in its spread. I don't think there is any such thing as Utopia on this planet, but I don't think actively attacking a charity that to my knowledge has done nothing but give a free product away is promoting any real agenda at all, anti-Utopian or otherwise. It certainly has no impact on capitalism one way or the other--people will still take the best product they can get for the money they are willing to spend.
Wow. Shoulda checked this thread yesterday.
I always miss the Turkey roasts these days.
LOL!!!!
And it was damn fun too.........
Along the lines of Linus' "practicality", it is useful to read through some of the discussions that have been published regarding linking to binary code from the kernel. Linus favors allowing it because it opens more doors in the corporate world than disallowing it would. Like you said, it is not a 'religious' thing with him, just practicalities and real-world issues.
Like seemingly every post, you again lie in defense of Stallman, since it's already been confirmed in this thread several times that 80% of all open source software uses his license. I'd hardly call that a fringe, but of course I have a functioning brain.
Wow, you sure did link to Marx in a hurry. NO THANKS.
And you refuse to admit that open source = open borders? What borders or barriers to adoption are placed on it then, certainly not financial or technical? Which is of course why the United Nations loves it so much, here they are just the other day promoting it, again.
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/02/20/1389065.htm
"Every group has its fringe radicals."
Buzzy the Wonder Turkey is proof of that.
As I've said, supporting OSS doesn't equate to agreeing with RMS. I support OSS and believe that RMS doesn't speak for me.
I'm saying he wrote the second version of GPL before he lost his marbles--fifteen years ago. Plus, the third version is so political and full of rhetoric (at least as it currently stands) that it's sickening.
There is a difference. You, with all due respect sir, are just too dense to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.