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

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

david.blomberg@example.com writes:

 > Disclaimer:

 >    I approach this from a social standpoint rather than an economics
 > viewpoint,

There's no difference, not to an ethical economist.

 > so I must (trying to) respectfully disagree ion several points.

 > > 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. ;)

Economics *is* a branch of moral philosophy.  What more do you want?

Like pure mathematics, pure philosophy gives you only the answers you
assume.  If you want to make statements about the real world, you must
measure it.

 > >   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?

We're talking about "theft".  Code is for users, but users who are not
buyers are not being stolen from.  (DRM and similar "goods" imposed on
users are exceptions; I'm assuming they have at least the choice to
use or not.)

 > > 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.

Please use your threaded MUA and review the context.  We're talking
about a permissive license, not copyleft.  Of course downstream must
fulfill the letter of the license.  JC, however, said that closing a
derivative of a permissively licensed codebase is "theft" in spirit
even though it is fully compliant with the license.

 > > 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. 

Yes, to the general population of users.  Since we're assuming no
viral effects at this point, we're implicitly talking about a
rebranding of essentially the same codebase.  Thus, the users have the
choice between open source, and closed source plus something.  If they
choose closed source, they must value the something more than open
source.

 > Stallman is not known for his tact I would have loved to overhear how
 > that one went. ;)

I just told you.  He told me to lie.  I told him that if I actually
did the research, I would not lie.  He didn't reply.

As for tact, I just posted a really classic Stallmanism. :-(

 > > 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?

Excuse me?  What are you trying to say?

 > > 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.

Are you saying you know better?

 > > [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)

Of course it's excusable.  An expert is a person who has far more
knowledge about a subject than another does.  There are three
reasonable ways to handle this situation as the non-expert.  (1) You
trust the expert, and accept her advice to the extent that you cannot
check it.  (2) You don't trust the expert, and exit the conversation,
not being interested in her advice.  (3) You spend a few years
acquiring similar expertise, either to combine your expertise with
hers, or to contest her opinion.

On TLUG, I think that (3) is mu-ri, thus I proclaim openly that I wish
to rely on my expertise to avoid pointless arguments.  I advise you
that you are likely only to lower yourself in the esteem of the
participants in TLUG by trying to undermine my expertise, but you're
certainly welcome to try.

 > I am sure you are a great Economist

I'm not.

 > but this whole issue is not just about Economics. This is also a
 > social issue.

True, but at the end of the day you must pay for your social benefits,
and you'll be back at my window asking how.