__/ [ John Bailo ] on Friday 11 May 2007 17:03 \__
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1045
>
> "Patents and copyrights were conceived as individual rights, not
> corporate goods. And open source proves that inventions can be even
> grander than before if rights to the work are held in common.
>
> To some people this still sounds like revolution, like a peasant's
> revolt. It's not. It's just a new market reality, one which has no use
> for Kings. Which is the way the commoner Adam Smith (above) intended it."
Open source is good for vendors if they wish to compete. Customers choose
vendors that honour their rights, so vendors should compete based on what
satisfies the customer. /NOT/ going open source is bad for vendors (because
this would kill the vendor). That's what competition is about. It's good for
the customer. That's why monopolies are about creating heaven for one single
vendor while everyone else suffers. Which is better?
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Spam enchanted evening..."
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:00am up 13 days 11:22, 5 users, load average: 0.27, 0.54, 0.75
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
