Re: [Group Etiquette]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <simon@example.com> writes:

    Simon> Open source software means you can fix what you don't
    Simon> like. If you don't fix it and you continue to bitch about
    Simon> it, well...

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.  OSS means _somebody_ can fix it.  _You_ don't
have to.  _You_ can pay your dues in cash, if you like.  (Switching
from the demagogic you to the personal you, of course _you_ prefer to
pay in code.  But the vast majority of lusers can't.)

Jonathan Shore is quite correct in his instinct to outsource some of
his projects.  He wants to substitute cash in quantifiable amounts for
hard to project long-term employment relationships.  There's no reason
that this is incompatible with turning around and publishing the code.

The problem is that open source software means that it is very hard to
assemble donations of cash from enough of the potentially benefited
lusers.  That's why proprietary software is hard to resist[1] for luser-
oriented apps; it gives you the right to _enforce_ "donations" of cash
from lusers who cannot donate code.

Finally, it's a bit disingenuous of you to call de novo implementation
of an app "fixing" an open source program.  :-)


Footnotes: 
[1]  If you want to hit the market window.  This is true both from a
private profit and a social utilitarian point of view.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."