On 06/09/2012 07:42 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
Closed source only serves one purpose, profit. That's fine, but if I'm
not personally profiting, then why would I argue for that side? You could
say that because of profit, people are able to develop software which they
might not develop by any other
Pat wrote (Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:51:34 +1000)
It looks like in ESR's framework this falls mainly under the topic of
agency harm - 'They can use this asymmetry to restrict your choices,
control your data, and extract rent from you. I?ll call this ?agency
harm?'.
A good PPT talk about this
Closed source only serves one purpose, profit. That's fine, but if I'm
not personally profiting, then why would I argue for that side? You could
say that because of profit, people are able to develop software which they
might not develop by any other means, again, true, but again, not my
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Matt Giuca matt.gi...@gmail.com wrote:
ESR has put up a brilliant (IMHO) blog post about the importance of
essentially picking your battles. He says:
For the less social persons on the list (the ones who, like me, don't
read/subscribe/follow all parts of/persons
The link! Of course! :)
Would have been a great thing to remember to put in the original email.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
