Sorry, itchy-send-button.
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
>>> Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the
>>> world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who
>>> claims to be a proponent of open source.
>>
>> This is getting off-topic for the list, I think, but I have to
Actually, I think it's very on-topic. It's very important to me that
we have a strong relationship between the community and commercial
companies, and part of that is discussing what people's expectations
are of companies that are making use of our open-source technology.
>> disagree strongly with this description of the "very nature" of "open
>> source". Indeed, the term "open source" was coined precisely to get
>> _away_ from that do-gooder reputation of the old "Free Software"
>> moniker, and to emphasise the simple, practical benefits of having
>> source code that you can modify.
>>
>> I don't believe for an instant that IBM, for instance, is intending
>> to do good for the world by working on Linux. They're trying to run
>> a business, and they think that by getting involved in this way, they
>> can get some hunk of the market. (IBM is simply too big to want to
>> do good or ill: they have to be run more or less exclusively on
>> whatever sells stuff and makes shareholders leave management alone.)
>> Similarly, Stonebraker wasn't doing harm to the world when he tried
>> to commercialise Ingres (or Postgres!). There are plenty of
>> different motivations that people have for placing their code under
>> an open source license. I'm happy they're doing it whatever their
>> motivation.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)