Re: [tlug] [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["david.blomberg@example.com" <david.blomberg@example.com>]

Disclaimer:
   I approach this from a social standpoint rather than an economics
viewpoint, so I must (trying to) respectfully disagree ion several
points.

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 15:51 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Helary writes:
> 
>  > How do you convince developers that giving others the right to close  
>  > the code they took so much time to write is a benefit ?
> 
> Getting them all the way to "benefit" is hard.  It helps for them to
> have advanced training in economics, which is obviously a non-
> starter. ;-)  However, I can outline the argument.
sorry don't buy it. Philosophy would be better. ;)
> 
> - First of all, the code *they wrote* *cannot* be closed in the
>   abstract unless they close it themselves (and possibly not at all).
>   It is always available in its original form.
fully agree.
> 
>   Why not leave it up to the buyers to decide in what form they want
>   their code, given that you have given them the choice?[1]
This statement assumes a lot.  Why did I write the code in the first
place? All code for "buyers" not users?
> 
> So it's hard to see that letting others produce closed-source products
> from code released under open source is a loss at all.[2]
How so? I see it pretty clearly.  If for nothing else breaking the
contract they agreed to when they integrated my code.
>  
> As for where the benefit comes from, the argument is implicit in the
> above.  Giving consumers choice is a benefit; since distributing
> publically as open source but allowing closed-source redistribution
> gives the consumers more choice than enforcing open-source
> redistribution, there is a benefit.
To someone who wishes to redistribute closed?(yes) Not necessarily to
the general population of users. 
> 
> If you want to discuss the paybacks required by the viral clause,
> that's arguable either way.  Above, we have already logically proved
I would disagree but this comes from our viewpoints.  While you are
viewing this on an economics basis; I am looking at this from a social
viewpoint.  
> Interestingly, when I proposed to Stallman that this research be done,
> he begged me not to do it, and if I did it, I should withhold my
> results from publication, because it could only undermine the purely
> theoretical arguments of the free software advocates.
Stallman is not known for his tact I would have loved to overhear how
that one went. ;)
> 
>  > And I did not declare that use of "liberal-open-source-license code"  
>  > was stealing, it is closing the code and/or not contributing back  
>  > that is stealing.
> 
> Just who do you claim is being stolen from?  What property is being
> stolen?  And where do the victims' rights to the property come from?
Broken contract.  Copyright is a social style contract. (just calling it
copyleft does not negate it being a copyright. 
> 
> And how do you claim that the *licensee* is stealing?  Surely, if any
> theft is occurring, it is the *licensor*, not the *licensee*, who is
> committing it.  AFAICS the licensee can rely legally and ethically on
> the licensor's permission, and not be held to be guilty of theft.
Not at all.  The licensee is free to use the code and all for
themselves.  They are only liable to release his code if they
distribute. As per the contract they agreed to by using the code base.
> 
> That is, if I, or Jeffrey Friedl, or Larry Wall, or Guido van Rossum,
> or Eric Allman, or Keith Packard, or HP/Sun/DEC/Fujitsu/..., or Donald
> Knuth, et al, ad nauseum, wanted to prevent closing and/or
> noncontribution we'd use copyleft licenses.  If *anybody* is
> "stealing", it is *us*, by authorizing the allegedly antisocial
> behavior.  
alleged by whom? This is Social behavior. We teach kids to play nice and
share.  When did it become anti-social just because companies may be
involved?
> And not our downstreams who are only doing what *we*
> authorize them to do.  I take *strong* exception to that accusation.
As I do with your use of anti-social in the previous context.

> Footnotes: 
> [1]  Given the axiom that each person knows better than anyone else
> what she needs, you cannot turn that question around.  You need to
> explain the benefits of removing choice, otherwise there is no way to
> justify any course but to offer the choice.
Hardly an axiom I agree to each person knows best what they want but not
what they need.
> 
> [2]  Seeing that those arguments are correct, and knowing what the
> important underlying assumptions are, is what requires advanced
> training.  
Claiming an expertise in order to avoid argument is in-excusable. (you
have done so several times in this)
> I assure you that the above can be expressed in such a way
> that any competent economist 
> would agree the argument is correct.
again.
> Most would agree with the "important" assumptions, but that is not
> universal.
I am sure you are a great Economist but this whole issue is not just
about Economics. This is also a social issue.

the other dave