Re: [Ogf-l] "Shared-Source"

[Margaret Vining]

----- Original Message ----- From: Skywise >Margret, > >I don't think I understand your argument about the IRS.  It sounds like >you are saying that the success of open source software is due to >several organizations non-profit status.  Is this correct?   Nope.  I'm arguing that entities (for-profit, non-profit, fan/hacker based... anything) who are structured to profit from the free use of an idea are more likely to survive in the open source community than an entity who is dependent on domination or controll of a popular idea.  The "shared-source" issue may be a sign that Microsoft won't survive in the long run.   My point was _not_ that open source owes everything to nonprofits.   However, what I am suggesting is that the IRS might need to rethink who it approves for nonprofit status in the "open" communities.  My knee-jerk reaction to the Microsoft issue is "who cares", but what in fact has happened is that a company who pays taxes is _potentially_ unable to compete in a market where nonprofit organizations (or other untaxable entities, like fans) can thrive.  >If it is, may I point out that while the Free Software Foundation and >Open Source Initiative are non-profit organizations, other companies >based upon GPLed software - Caldera, VA Linux, Red Hat - are all >for-profit, publicly traded companies.  Microsoft is trying to co-opt >what they perceive as the strength of open source - harness the >community of developers, improve code stability - but without those >pesky issues of giving up control of their code.  Unfortunately, the >strength of the Open Source movement lies in the freedom (free as in >liberty, not free as in beer) of the software to grow beyond one >company's control, in the ownership by the community, and in the >motivations of joy and curiosity, not profit margins and ship dates.   Yes, it is a wonderful thing, but not in a world economy that is designed to function on a supply and demand basis.  A lot is going to need to change.  I like this change, don't get me wrong but the laws of our society are not yet structued to acomodate this unstopable flow of resource. >The IRS - fortunately - is far away from this battle.   The IRS is right in the middle of it, or at least they should be.  Here's my logic for saying that: Technically, Microsoft is being brought down by a widget designed by an NPO.  This widget is the open source movement.  So here we have a nonprofit company directly competing with a for-profit company, but the NPO doesn't pay taxes on the spread of their widget when the for-profit company does.  Additionally, over time, this NPOs widget modifies the business paradigm so much that only the (tax-exempt) NPO is designed to succeed.   This scenario is what the IRS is supposed to prevent when reviewing applications for NPO status. (If I understand things correctly).   >If it isn't, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.   No apology necessary.  More often than not I fail to communicate effectively.  I think what I'm really trying to say is that "shared-source" has nothing to do with open source and my guess is that Microsoft is going to have to change or die.  And if a parallel exists in the two open movements: My theory is that the PI clause in the OGL will do nothing to soften the blow for RPG companies _in the long run_.  Like microsoft, they will have to learn to become less dependent on ownership of information and more dependent on utilization and contribution of information.  I feel like this situation shows that RPG companies may have no choice but to eventually participate in d20.   Maggie Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com