Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame

[Thomas Lord]

 Stephen> Tom, as far as I can see your claim that Canonical exploits
 Stephen> you by using your *previously released* software is
 Stephen> equivalent to the counterclaim that you want to exploit
 Stephen> Mr. S's business acumen by sharing in his *past* revenue
 Stephen> streams (Canonical is not yet above water AFAIK).

 That is not quite my claim, as I believe I've said.  My claim is a
 little subtle, so I understand your confusion.  To simplify a bit:

* "ex-ploit (v): to make use of selfishly or unethically" [1]

 1. I claim that the behavior of Canonical's agents caused unjust harm
    to me personally and to a public project.   This claim is not
    equivalent to a legal claim, of course.  So, part of what I am
    saying is that, morally, Canonical should work to find
    mutually agreeable ways of compensating for that harm.
    If you want to fit that into your economic analysis, think
    about how to measure the economic value of being a community
    member in good standing.  (As I put it to Mark, "Replace your
    divots!" -- an ethical principle of The Commons if ever there
    was one.)

 2. I claim that there is more to a free software project than
    simply the sequence of tar-bundles containing source code
    releases.  Much of what "else" there is is very abstract:
    allocations of attention, intellectual momentum, group dynamics,
    etc.   Though fragile and difficult to delineate, those "other"
    elements are where the true value resides -- it is analogous to
    a portion of the "health" of the commons.   It is the state
    of the groundskeepers and gardners.  To the extent one grazes
    one's cattle on the commons, one has a social responsibility to
    protect that groundskeeper/gardner state.

 Aside: "Always motivate from the positive," is the wisest sales and
 marketing advice (and among the wisest general life advice) I've
 ever heard.  Well, there is figure and ground, no?  Can not one
 emphasize the figure (the positive) by darkening the ground?
 Sometimes it seems necessary.

* "ex-ploit (v): to employ to the greatest possible advantage; utilize" [1]

 You start burbling about "*previously released* software" and I am
 disappointed to find you stuck in an overly simplistic economic
 model.

 Yes, of course, the bits in a tar bundle of free software non-rival
 but that is almost exactly the least interesting thing one could say
 about them.

 From the corporate perspective, the free software world is comprised
 not of tar bundles but of projects.  The business opportunities
 arising as a result of the existence of those projects are quite
 rival.  The set of projects is a scarce but renewable resource.
 The vitality of that resource of projects depends in no small
 part on the economic value of taking the risk of starting one.

 Having recognized that he obtained value for what I had already done,
 in my project, Mark would have simply been *wise* to bet *for* *rather
 than invest against* my *future work*.


-t

[1] "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language",
   Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981


P.S.: Minor points

   Thomas> I was, in my view, offered money to create a hostile fork
   Thomas> of my own project

   Stephen> Apt description.  So Mr. S showed you the respect due to
   Stephen> a potential competitor who could be a big advantage if
   Stephen> converted to an ally.  I really think it's unbecoming of
   Stephen> you to deny that (implicitly).  It *is* respect for your
   Stephen> expertise.

 No, no -- the ethical principal in my family is that yes, you *may*
 respect the *expertise* but *certainly* you must respect the *man*.

 I suppose that in economic terms the explanation comes from the fact
 that the respect for the man inspires, at the very least, future
 experts to create themselves.


   Stephen> Oh, come on.  "Software is forever." 

 Nonsense.  Sheer, utter, nonsense.  Well... most of the time.
 Nearly all of the time.  With some exceptions.  In theory.  Maybe.


-t