> Behalf Of Joshua Bell
[snip]
> I presume we're talking about this at a meta-level, right? No-one (well,
> almost no-one, and no jibes from the peanut gallery) outright damns open
> source's failure to show a profit; instead, the lack of profit
> (based on our
> ostensibly free market) damns the open source movement by virtue of not
> giving it the necessary funds to thrive.
Yep, but I would add "passive acceptance of the market's judgment" as a big
part of the problem.
> Banning advertising might be an approach, but disrupting network effects
> (like Windows) would be impossible without also banning free
> speech and free
> association since they have strong cultural components.
I think that you've hit very close to the kind of intellectual exploration
that needs to take place. But not to stop free speech or network effects,
to embrace them. I think we are headed toward *greater* economic and social
freedom, not less (although God knows what sort of Inquisitions might arise
in the meantime). The Internet itself demonstrates the power that free
speech (more free than under U.S. law, I'd argue, pragmatically speaking)
and collaboration can have in a competitive environment. But how do we
embrace principles of self-organization and at the same time prevent the
suppression of innovation and diversity in the way that a dominant product
like Windows seems to produce? Demand open standards?
Nick
