Re: Economics of non-free "Open Source"

[Alan <steelville@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[First, the Open Source issue]: It is very much appropriate for this 
forum and to the livelihood of programmers, which I suspect is why Mr. 
Gibbs has not stopped it.

[Second, this forum and free speech]: This being a forum organized and 
set up by him, and being his sandbox, as I have said before, makes it at 
the same time an exercise of his own right of free speech if he views 
something as beyond the limits of either the topic, or the limits of 
civil discussion, according the clearly stated rules for it. David has 
shown objectivity in his enforcement, which makes it all the more seem 
like the open air. It's his calll and he's generally more than fair 
anyway. So here's to David.

[Third, on free speech]. I obviously agreed that free speech is not even 
enforced in practice. But as a theory and as an ideal it has obviously 
overturned tyrranies all over the world many times, and to dismiss it as 
irrelevant to practical matters is to lose all perspective. It's bad 
enough in this day when companies would still buy a database product 
from a company whose CEO loudly proclaims that privacy is dead, it's 
over, get over it, and get used to being without it, and he wants to 
provide the database (free to the government) to watch everybody!

[Fourth, loss leader etc.] Third, the point about "loss leader" was only 
one example of a long list to answer the implication that it "robs" anyone.

[Fifth] So if we agree on how it works, and it's "best for some things 
and not for others", and that nobody is robbing anyone, then I do not 
see where there is any any argument, except to say "much ado about 
nothing", a euphemism for another dictionary word mentioned in a 
previous post and shown to be appropriate by the dictionary definition 
also posted.

- Alan