Our fundamental viewpoints are so disparate that we could not even begin to engage in a meaningful discourse regarding this issue.
Steven B. Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pacific Telehealth and Technology Hui www.PacificHui.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Horst Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The rewards of contributing to the OpenSource Community > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > no mechanism to get paid for his brilliant Intellectual > Property which he > > neglected to protect, because he released his product as > Open Source. The > > Nonsense. > > 1.) "Intellectual property" is a dehumanizing construct > which I put into the > same word basket as "collateral damage". There is no > evolution of knowledge > if knowledge is not shared - and "intellectual property" is > the anathema of > sharing knowledge. Can you imagine where we would be today if > Isaac Newton > would not have openly published his ideas, but locked them away as > "intellectual property"? > > 2.) It was not this guys "brilliant intellectual property" > anyway, since he > built on top of existing free software solutions, modifying > and improving > them. While his own work has great merits, it's only a small > fraction of the > total work - which he was allowed to use freely only under > the condition that > he would share his work as well. It is a non-monetary economy > of that kind > which obviously suits "increase of knowledge wealth" best, > while it might not > always suit "increase of personal pecuniary wealth". > > Horst >
Tomlinson, Steven B.vcf
Description: Binary data
