Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Sun, 08 Nov 1998   
10:11:40 -0700 
>    
> At 02:04 AM 11/8/98 +0000, stan johnson wrote: 
>   
> >** Reply to note from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Sat, 07 Nov 1998    
> >23:45:29 -0700  
> >> However, we do NEED viable commercial competition.   
> >  
> >Why?  
 
I should have been a tad less laconic. I should have noted that I'm not (at this   
moment at least) opposed to commercial competition; just not convinced it's   
*necessary*. 
 
>    
> Because that's how innovation happens. Linux contains precious little that's 
> innovative, and this is true for virtually every other open source product 
> that's out there. 
 
My instincts tell me you're wrong about the innovative content of OSS, but I   
don't know enough in depth about the construction of software to take   
detailed issue. This of course assuming that you aren't trying to require more   
innovation of OSS than you do of proprietary--much of which seems rather   
poor in innovation to me as a user. 
 
I will say that your first statement, that commercial competition is how   
innovation happens, is, IMO, based on a kind of fallacious cosmological   
principle: you are, it would appear, assuming that the details of the present   
situation are universal. I don't see any validity to that at all. The present   
commercial, mercantile, capitalistic society is a relatively new development,   
*long* preceded by many major intellectual and inventive creations. 
 
Creativity and innovation are built into the human brain, and in fact are clearly   
one of the principle driving forces in the creation of human civilization. It does   
not and never did need materialistic motivation. [Though such motivation can   
contribute--it is not necessary, though it can be sufficient.] 
 
You can't have it both ways. Either OSS is a poorly-creative 'me too' kind of   
weakling, or it's a powerful competing force [to name just the extremes].  
 
It's my understanding that you view freeBSD as a powerful and stable OS, and   
that your real objection is not to open source, but to the GPL's refusal to allow   
conversion of open source into proprietary software.  
 
If open source is so poorly innovative, what's being lost to the proprietary   
developer? Some wishy-washy non-innovative code, clearly of no real value?   
You are, to paraphrase, saying: 'OSS code is lacking innovation. I need to be   
able to use it in my new product I am developing'  Huh?? What are you   
developing--some non-innovative product? 
 
>    
> It'd also be nice if programmers could eat. (And don't give me the line about 
> turning them into repairmen. I would never be a programmer if relegated to 
> the status of "software janitor.") 
 
Everyone is entitled to their motivations, including of course Brett Glass. This   
does emphatically not extend to imposing that motivation nor requiring support   
of or subservience to that motivation on others. I don't think I've ever proposed   
outlawing proprietary software--certainly I don't presently have any such   
thought. But I also don't buy the idea of trying to pressure/force everyone to   
contribute their efforts to support same, whether they want to or not. If OSS is   
as poor in innovation as you suggest, there should be little impediment from   
OSS's existence to your creating innovative software. From the M$ hegemony,   
YES! 
 
Of course, if users decide that they don't want to pay for proprietary software,   
and are willing to accept any [hypothesized] lesser innovation, why, that's their   
choice! And I hope you haven't the temerity to suggest they be deprived of   
that choice, and forced to pay for proprietary software. That's *ENTIRELY* too   
reminiscent of the One Microsoft Way... 
 
Stan

-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net