-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Defining Software Freedom: The Singularity of Free
,----[ Quote ]
| It should be noted up front that I may
| have been a bit presumptuous in assigning
| the origins of open core to Aaron
| Fulkerson, the CEO of MindTouch. In a
| comment on my blog, Fulkerson himself
| corrected the issue:
|
| "I can't take credit for 'open core.' When
| we began capitalizing MindTouch I employed
| a model that made sense to me because it
| seemed to strike a nice balance between
| the needs and wants of the community of
| MindTouch users and the needs (and wants)
| of our company. I didn't have a name for
| it until Lampitt coined the term. I simply
| adopted it. Furthermore, I don't think
| this is a new model. Indeed, we've been
| employing this model since the very dawn
| of software."
`----
http://www.itworld.com/legal/113094/defining-software-freedom-the-singularity-free
Proprietary Software Licensing Produces No New Value In Society
,----[ Quote ]
| Meanwhile, I've also spent some time
| applying this idea of "creating nothing
| and producing nothing" to the proprietary
| software industry. Proprietary licenses,
| in many ways, are actually not all that
| different from these valueless financial
| transactions. Initially, there's no
| problem: someone writes software and is
| paid for it; that's the way it should be.
| Creation of new software is an activity
| that should absolutely be funded: it
| creates something new and valuable for
| others. However, proprietary licenses are
| designed specifically to allow a single
| act of programming generate new revenue
| over and over again. In this aspect,
| proprietary licensing is akin to selling
| financial derivatives: the actual valuable
| transaction is buried well below the non-
| existent financial construction above it.
|
| [...]
|
| Software freedom is another principle of
| this type. While you can make a profit
| with community-respecting FLOSS business
| models (such as service, support and
| freely licensed custom modifications on
| contract), it's admittedly a smaller
| profit than can be made with Open Core and
| proprietary licensing. But that greater
| profit potential doesn't legitimatize such
| business models, just as it doesn't
| legitimize strip mining or gambling on
| financial derivatives.
`----
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/07/07/producing-nothing.html
Glyn Moody responds:
Exploring Entitlement Economics
,----[ Quote ]
| This idea of getting money for work
| already done is precisely how copyright is
| regarded these days. It's not enough for a
| creator to be paid once for his or her
| work: they want to be paid every time it
| is performed or copies made of
| performances.
|
| So ingrained is this idea that anyone
| suggesting the contrary - like that
| doughty young Eleanor - is regarded as
| some kind of alien from another planet,
| and is mocked by those whose livelihoods
| depend upon this kind of entitlement
| economics.
|
| But just as open source has cut down the
| fat profits of proprietary sotware
| companies, so eventually will the
| exorbitant profits of the media industry
| be cut back to reasonable levels based on
| how much work people do - because, as Kuhn
| notes, there really is no justification
| for anything more.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/07/exploring-entitlement-economics.html
Recent:
Open Source, free or not free?
,----[ Quote ]
| To be or not to be, free. That is the
| question. Well the answer is not 42. Or
| maybe it is. Forty two is the answer to life
| according to Arthur Dent yet he didn't know
| the question. The question is probably too
| big for us to understand or even ask so I
| guess we will never know. Perhaps one day at
| the restaurant doing some pasta equations
| while watching the end of the universe we
| will know but until then.....
|
| [...]
|
| The meaning of the word free in the Open
| Source context is freedom (who doesn't have
| Mel Gibson shouting that in their heads
| right now :). What freedom though? Freedom
| to devalue the hard work of companies and
| programmers trying to make a simple living?
| No! Open Source freedom is freedom of
| knowledge. Freedom to understand and freedom
| to learn. Advocates of Open Source are free
| to freely share their knowledge and freely
| learn from others.
`----
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/open-source-free-or-not-free-39747
Afraid of open core lock-in? The alternative could be worse
http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/afraid-open-core-lock-in-the-alternative-could-be-worse-009
Open Core Debate: Avoiding the Law of Unintended Consequences
,----[ Quote ]
| In the interest of transparency, I work with
| over twenty open source companies, most of
| who were funded by venture capitalists and
| the vast majority of which use the âopen
| coreâ model. These companies have provided
| significant value to end users through the
| software licensed under open source
| licenses. Simon states: âBut to use the
| package effectively in production, a
| business probably wonât find the functions
| of the core package sufficient, even in the
| (usual) case of the core package being
| highly capable.â This statement is simply
| incorrect. I have sat through many Board
| meetings and, in fact, the conversion rate
| from âopen sourceâ to âcommercialâ licenses
| is generally less than 10% for these
| companies. Thus, more than nine out of ten
| end users find the functionality of the open
| source version satisfactory.
|
| Simon says that open core does not provide
| software freedom for âend usersâ. Yet,
| nothing prevents the end users of the open
| source version to modify it and distribute
| it or otherwise exercise the rights under
| the license. In fact, Compiere demonstrates
| the fallacy of this position because it
| created two different forks. Simon complains
| about the lack of access to the âcommercial
| extensionsâ of open core programs.
`----
http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=485
Open core is not a crime
,----[ Quote ]
| Simon Phipps has articulated why this
| strategy does not meet the approval of
| software freedom advocates, but in doing so,
| in my opinion, mischaracterises the
| relationship between open core vendors and
| open source.
`----
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/07/02/open-core-is-not-a-crime/
Open Core and OSI
,----[ Quote ]
| Is Mark suggesting that OSI intended to
| facilitate less freedom for the code and end
| users than the GPL offers, that this was an
| OSI goal, that "software freedom for the
| software user" isn't and never was an OSI
| goal? Does freedom mean only the right to
| fork the code? If so, I'd like OSI to say so
| clearly and on the record. If so, it might
| provide insight into why OSI is struggling
| and provide indisputable proof that they
| were foundationally wrong. I hope they'll
| weigh in on this debate and plant their
| flag, because if that is what OSI stands
| for, maybe it's time to let them float out
| into outer space without the community, thus
| making it clear there really is no
| connection between the real FOSS community
| and OSI any more.
|
| If that is not what OSI stands for, I'd like
| to hear them say so. I hope it isn't. But
| the community wants to know where they
| stand, and for what.
|
| For myself, I believe that OSI, in order to
| be relevant, needs to reinvent itself and
| restructure to represent the entire
| community with its license list and its
| definition. Enough with the old divisions
| and the debates. The community needs to face
| the world more unitedly now, as a broad
| spectrum, including those who had the
| foresight to realize that VC guys and
| proprietary types would be coming along
| someday and would try to close down the
| freedom of the code and the freedoms of
| those using it just to make a buck.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100704191126134
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkw3GPMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6rrACeIpsx4rUhGVHW8ywBPFsMju9X
OiIAn2UqrSn5voyJeTQIXgOyAfB7TIY7
=J1Vd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
