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

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

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 20:40 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 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.
ok I will buy that.  Most Economist I have dealt with are unconcerned
for the ethical part just the ROI.  (Sorry baggage I have picked on my
part there)

>  > >   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.)
Yes and if they wish to use another license they are also free to
approach the code owner to ask if they are willing to re-ditribute it to
them under another license as well. (akin to sysv, mysql qt or another
proprietary license). 
> 
>  > > 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.
yes I understand just the argument seems to have developed past that
point.

I would agree technically under a BSD type license is is not theft. 
> 
>  > > 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.
Or just never heard or found the alternative.  Also many people can be
mis-led by advertising one way or the other. 
> 
>  > 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. :-(
Actually I have very little use for Stallman-I think Eben Moglen had a
better stand but I believe he is moving on. (something to do with
Stallmans' extreme views? who knows.)
> 
>  > > 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?
Limiting the to a BSD style license I retract the preceding (about
copyright) it would only apply to GPL style licenses.
> 
>  > > 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?
Not in some cases.  Definitely yes in others.  The point is most people
know what they want much more clearly than what they need. My daughter
wants candy-she need real food.
A company needs an office suite.  They get convinced by advertising that
they need MS Office.
The majority of people are easy to mis-lead.  

the other dave