On Feb 16, 4:51 am, "Joe Nuxoll (Java Posse)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Apple SDK and tools are free, and are pretty > much state-of-the-art (tool religion battles aside). FWIW, a large part of the Apple SDK is GPLd, open source, etc.: http://opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-321/ Whether Mach-O is state-of-the-art-er then ELF is debatable. ;) > (4) Open source is not a model unto itself - it is a business decision > made by a company or person (contributor) that aligns with the overall > objectives of that company or person. Open source is, at the core, a legal framework for software licenses. It's the equivalent of the shipping container for source code - a set of known properties allowing source code distributed under an open source license to be used, modified and distributed with usually lower (legal) transaction costs then source code distributed under unilateral or bilateral vendor-specific legal agreements. Whether that matters to you one way or another depends on what you do. > They open source some of their work (like webkit) Since the core of webkit is licensed under the LGPL, it would be surprising if Apple didn't publish that particular bit of code. > The food on your > table is not donated to you by open-source food producers. It's > business. You pay for it because you value it. I pay for it regardless whether I value food or not. Agricultural subsidies in the EU and US take care of that on one hand, and the need to avoid starvation on the other. Food is very, very different from software - I can't die from not using iTunes. At least I hope so ... I don't think you really understand what open source is - it is a legal framework for software licenses. Today, like in the past 'couple' of years, most food does not come with legal agreements governing its use, modification, or distribution. It is "open source" by design - you can use it to prepare any kind of meal, feed it to your loved ones, give it away etc. You can take the seeds and grow your own, if you feel like it, too. And despite all that, there is a massive agricultural industry built on "open source" produce with a myriad of business models. Of course, genetically modified crops come with EULAs these days: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smarta/2863508948/ - but I don't think that the past couple of thousand of years without the humanity dropping dead for the lack of EULAs to protect the business models of the food producers are an argument backing up your claims. ;) > You pay what you pay > because (a) you and others have decided you are willing to take on the > cost burden for the benefit, and (b) because it costs something *less* > than that to make. I'm curious if you have actually read any scientific analysis of current agricultural markets, as your take on it is extremely simplistic. In current agricultural markets, you have tariffs, subsidies, intermediaries, distribution channels, governmental mandates, locality, and so on, that all make the actual agricultural markets a lot more complex then the trivial direct, informed producer-consumer relationship you picture. cheers, dalibor topic -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
