__/ [ 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*
>> If the founders are smart, they've a considerable stock-holding too, so
>> they'll be able to walk as well.
>>
>> Taking all that into account - open-sourcing /after/ an IPO might be the
>> only way to keep things going, unless the company in question had
>> something which was truly worthwhile (again, the VCs don't care, because
>> they've got their money, as have the founders - their goal was to
>> convince mainstream investors of something, not to actually produce any
>> real results.)
>>
>> > I do,
>> > however, think that they should realise that Linux on the desktop is
>> > their
>> > friend. Windows Vista is intended to fight Google very viciously, so
>> > long as the courts don't crucify it (the hum has reached the US Feds and
>> > the EU already).
>> >
>>
>> Indeed...
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:30am up 9 days 12:27, 12 users, load average: 1.19, 0.55, 0.53
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
