begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Sunday 07 May 2006 03:32 \__
>
>>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> > __/ [ Mathew P. ] on Saturday 06 May 2006 09:12 \__
>>> >
>>> >> On 2006-05-06, Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>> >>> Open Source: Who Takes But Doesn't Give Back?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> >>>| InformationWeek is trying to find out who the volunteer open-source
>>> >>>| code contributors are. Who are the people--in addition to Linux's
>>> >>>| kernel originator, Linus Torvalds--who program into the night and
>>> >>>| donate the results to an ongoing, software building project. Whoever
>>> >>>| they are, they're changing the landscape for business.
>>> >>> `----
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/05/open_source_who.html
>>> >>
>>> >> So they are perfectly willing to enjoy the benefits of the GPL, but
>>> >> refuse to contribute on old "intellectual property" fallback? I hate to
>>> >> use the term, but hypocrite comes to mind.
>>> >
>>> > May I suggest the term "capitalisation"? Companies that build
>>> > powerful
>>> > software, standing on the shoulders of giants, fear the release of
>>> > their business 'recipes' that put them in a position of advantage.
>>> > Google is one
>>> > example that comes to mind and I still think they ought to
>>> > contribute
>>> > _MORE_ to the Open Source community. I don't expect them to GPL
>>> > their
>>> > algorithms (that will be absurd for a brand that was IPO'd).
>>>
>>> Ahh, be very careful here - the IPO is about making a /lot/ of money for
>>> the VCs from the initial offering. They couldn't care less, not one
>>> jot, about what happens /after/ the IPO - they've made their cash and
>>> they're already on the next one.
>>
>> At this point it has nothing to do with the IPO. Google is a publically
>> traded company and they are responsible to their shareholders first and
>> foremost. Google can be sued in court on behalf of shareholders if they
>> do anything which is considered not to be in the best interest of their
>> shareholders.
>>
>> It is now the shareholders that "own" the company. Not the founders or
>> the initial investors. That's one of thing things that an IPO does...
>> it transfers ownership of the company to the public (shareholders).
>
>
> Thanks, Larry. That was my point. Sorry Mark, to have replied to Larry, whom
> you consider a troll. *smile*
>
It still seems to miss the fundamental point, though. Let me try to
illustrate again:
>>> > _MORE_ to the Open Source community. I don't expect them to GPL
>>> > their
>>> > algorithms (that will be absurd for a brand that was IPO'd).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The mentioning of IPO is /only/ relevant if the state prior to floatation
was important, if it had not been, then why mention it? You could merely
say that /any/ publicly listed company would not want to open-source their
algorithms, as it would be absurd for a brand which be publicly listed.
Do you see my point?
Mentioning the IPO indicates that there is some significance to the
change of state from private venture funding to public ownership. I
pointed out that whilst there is significance, it's not what is
necessarily clear.
That Larry didn't understand this is unsurprising, but I thought that
you would... (slightly sad).
I would go much further, however - if your point is /truly/ that
open-sourcing algorithms is inappropriate for a publicly listed company,
then I wonder where you would, as it were, draw the line?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.
- Alan Turing
|
|
