Re: [tlug] Proprietary derivatives of FLOSS and other absurdities [was: Why Hollywood does break foreign films ?]

[Benjamin Tayehanpour <benjamin@example.com>]

On 14 August 2013 19:22, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> You really think many people contribute for reciprocal reasons?  I
> don't.  Corporations contribute because somebody else picks up the
> burden of maintaining their derivatives or because it's a complementer
> to their mission-critical stuff (and again somebody else does most of
> the maintenance).  Human persons have a variety of ego-based reasons
> (not to mention career advancement, based on the number of times I've
> had Google recruiters contact me).  Sure, there are a few people out
> there doing it for paybacks or payforwards, but not many.

Well, one could just disassemble human nature entirely and posit that
any positive group-oriented behaviour is egoistic in the end, since a
prosperous group means a prosperous self. And then one could just do
away with the question altogether and posit that due to the
implications of the quantum mind-body problem, there is no free will,
and thus no real choices to analyse. At a certain point,
deconstruction becomes unproductive. I'm perfectly happy to define
reciprocative behaviour by the actual end result, regardless of motive
or any personal gain which happens to befall one along the way,
intentionally or otherwise.

I, for one, reciprocate because I'd feel like a total shit if I
didn't. Though any ego-based reasons would certainly reinforce my will
to do so, that simple reason is reason enough.