On Friday 10 Sep 2010, A. Mani wrote: > 2010/9/10 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <[email protected]>: > > Excellent analysis. However, I'd find the argument more convincing > > if the author didn't bring political ideology into the discussion. > > For instance, there's no point in bashing MNCs in this context, > > and it may alienate some people who would otherwise have helped > > clarify the divide between public software and FOSS. Similarly, > > discussion about the benefits or otherwise of BSD don't belong in > > an article analysing public software vs FOSS -- BSD is a FOSS > > licence after all. > > I used BSD as an example of a more permissive license in the context > of explaining the misunderstanding of FOSS licenses.
Which is fine, though IMO passing judgement on it isn't. > > The biggest hurdle I see is the discussion of capitalism towards > > the end. Please note that Open Source Software has been created > > as a concept to help promote open software in a capitalist > > environment. The reasons for using open source software are meant > > to appeal to businesses, not to idealists. So the author could > > always distinguish between Free Software and Open Source software, > > and bring capitalism into the picture in that context; in the > > context of FOSS, however, capitalism is as relevant or irrelevant > > as any other political ideology. > > Politics and political ideology does matter in FOSS and especially > when it comes to implementation. > Typically businessmen tend to look for maximisation of profits at > minimum cost and look for corruptible bureaucrats. Technically > incompetent businesses will see FOSS as a hindrance and will want to > get through via kickbacks, though the technically competent may see > security in offering kickbacks. The former category will be more > reliant on corrupt methods. FOSS forces people to ensure quality of > services and so incompetent businesses (the majority) do not like it. > > Capitalism does not support sane principles of division of labour and > as FOSS implementations require a level of transparency, conflicts > cannot be avoided. That is an important reason for my claim. You're welcome to your opinion and ideology. In my own view, mingling of opinions and ideology with facts detracts from the worth of what would have been an otherwise excellent paper. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
