Economics of "free" (was: RE: Field+ and Field Exit keys- Hot wo make them repeat)

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
| Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 3:23 PM
| Subject: RE: Field+ and Field Exit keys- Hot wo make them repeat
|
|
| With that argument then open source isn't really free because
| you've taken
| away the productivity the person could have been spent elsewhere, like
| seeing your ads on TV and purchasing your products.

BING!!!!  Exactly!!

And you might recall a post from Jay Maynard saying similar, back around
last Oct/Nov.  (I didn't know, until I skimmed ESR's latest "Book" that Jay
is a bone-a-fyd CELEBRITY, as he helped on one chapter of the "gospel"...;-)
Jay and I have exchanged some posts on this subject on 2 threads here on M-L
over the past year or two (and, Iirc, an e or two).

I don't recall that last topic and what was discussed in the thread, or if I
participated or not.  But Jay's answer was one word (again Iirc) -
"Advertising."

In case any of you don't know, those multiple-and-multi
million-dollar-giveaways and such.  Sure SOUNDS like a free lunch, but it's
micropayments by everybody who purchases the products, to make a few folks
unimaginably rich...  Same concept as the lottos and casino's (except
casino's (and lottos?), at least, ARE regulated, because the house CANNOT
lose.. it's mathematically impossible).  SOUNDS like a free lunch, but if
someone knocked on your front door and said they were taking a collection of
$.01 from as many people as possible, and the proceeds collected would go to
making one person SO rich that they could retire, how many would actually
say okay??  At least with casino's and lotto's, there's some entertainment
value.


I started learning this as a teenager when my Dad explained the concept of
"free" TV, and also why movie theatres had posted their billboard with "Keep
free TV", back when cable was coming out in the 60's.


| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of James Rich
| Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:48 PM
| Subject: RE: Field+ and Field Exit keys- Hot wo make them repeat

| On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, jt wrote:
|
| > I dunno, but I assume James meant CA...  Main point is there's
| a mistaken
| > economic view here, which is widespread:
| > iSeries Navigator is "free" in the "Open"-Source-cult sense only.
|
| iSeries Navigator is not free in the open source sense.

I may have posted this before, James, but I want your boss to be happy.
Iirc, you posted "my boss is happy when I have a smile on my face"...:-D
However, iSeries Navigator is free in the "Open"-source-cult sense.

| You cannot access
| the source code, much less change it and distribute it.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, otherwise JDE, Lawson and other
ERP packages would be considered "Open" Source, but without re-distribution
rights.

| The "free" in
| opensource terms is in reference to freedoms gauranteed to you in the
| licensing,

You still have yet to appreciate the True GENIUS of RMS.  (And I don't bally
about the word "genius" casually or loosely, EXCEPT One time in One letter I
wrote to Mr. Gerstner long ago, for reasons that should be obvious.)

===> By couching the whole GNU thing in terms of "freedom" and "democracy",
Mr. Stallman was able to avoid Taft-Hartley regulation.  It's still a bunch
of hype, but very effective hype nonetheless.

| not in terms of cost (either to you or to the producers).  It
| is not so much the software that is free, but you.  You are free to choose
| to act with the software in almost any way you choose.

This is a logic error.  The whole thing begins with a lie, which starts when
RMS says "the author is a programmer".  The author is NOT a programmer, he's
an academic who can write a program or two or three...  BIG difference, and
it's a lie.

Again, an EFFective lie, because the world is turning into a place where
ONLY academics will be ABLE to afford to program...  This has been a trend
for some time, and it may come to fruition before too long, who knows.  Hans
recently posted his view that implied (to me unfortunately) that only
post-graduates have any business writing biz programs, for example, on
RPG-L.

"Freedom" my butt.  The GNU license is almost entirely about IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS, if you observe closely.  "Democracy".. guess again.


However, I would suggest we take Larry Bolhuis' previous suggestion, as this
is some serious thread drift.  There is no need for David to waste his time
moderating when others accurately point to when a thread has gone off-topic,
imo...  If you care to, we can move any further discussion (if any) to
another list, James.  I'm on CPF0000, Non-Tech and OSS lists, for example.

And, despite having said the above, I hope you and your boss have a good
day, James!

| James Rich

"As for developing an OS, being lectured by Linus Torvalds is like receiving
wise words on the subject of compassion from Stalin."
      -- me