On 2009-01-20, amicus_curious <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Ncjdl.6415$Qa.3072@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>
>> What this has to do with Free Software is beyond me.
>>
> Then you are just not paying attention. The fundamental principle of FOSS,
> as voiced by Stallman, is that closed source is evil and an unethical denial
> of the rights of the user. "All software should be free!" is his mantra and
> if you are a true son of the movement, then you must agree.
>
> The alternate, crass, commercial view is that software is like anything else
> that involves intellectual value. It is the work product of the author and
Nope. The alternate view is that creative works are not necessary
capital for future creators. Ellison doesn't think that he should step
aside and allow the next generation the same priveledges he enjoyed.
Ellison should be free to shake down the next generation of artists.
The fact that he will walk picket lines is a red herring.
[deletia]
RMS sees creative work purely within the kernel of it's original (US)
legal justification rather than some cash cow or extension of real or
personal property.
In this respect, "the kook" is more in touch with practical reality than
Ellison or anyone who thinks like him.
BTW... this whole theme of "I got mine, screw the next generation" is a
very common "Baby Boomer" mindset.
Ellison rants against the idea that "exposure" can ultimately make
you money. He makes fun of other members of the Bab5 cast that chose to
act more as "team players". His rant is wrong both in terms of the social
aspect and from pure economics. Monty Python and Baen are both great
counterexamples.
Being a crass jerk generally doesn't tend to win you customers.
Now, I would pay real money to get to see Cameron or Schwarzenegger
punch Ellison in the face.
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
|
|
