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
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.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
