Get your story straight!
One day, you insist the GPL destroys economic ownership of IP. The next, you admit that google is able to achieve fantastic economic success in part through the use of ... yes that's right! ... GPL software! And that they don't have to release what they themselves are using in-house!
You guys crack me up.
<<One day, you insist the GPL destroys economic ownership of IP. >>
<< The next, you admit that google is able to achieve fantastic economic success in part through the use of ... yes that's right!>>
Nope. Merely pointed out how companies that hope to make $ will avoid GPL'ing their IP, as google may have..
But that wasn't the main topic, it was how the GPL destroys the motivation to innovate....
has google gpl'd their own software?
if not, why not?
Why don't you ask them?
There are reaons for releasing software under the GPL, and for not doing so. Releasing software under the GPL is only mandatory when taking EXISTING software, modifying it, and DISTRIBUTING it. GPL software can be modified all day long, and it doesn't have to be released if it is only used in-house.
Isn't it interesting that using GPL software does no attenuate economic ownership at all, despite what the FUDsters here would have you believe.
THe GPL attenuates economic ownership only for monopolies. For them it's a poison pill and the world is laughing at Microsoft and its supposed "superior" products & business model. It's a flash in the pan, in the larger scheme of things. In twenty years, people will be saying, "Remember the Windows years?" like today they talk about Standard Oil.
<<there is no doubt that oss is a communistic model. no doubt. >>
Yep. However, you may want to limit your definition of OSS to just GPL'ed software. The GPL creator is a communist and his creation is too.
Ever notice how most linus worshippers try and distance themselves from stallman?
>>>>BTW: I am 100% sure that XBOX is also providing profits for those that are versed...
<Do you have a link to this, or are you just "sure" it is? >
Nice to see the dmbny alias. Just ask EA, or any game or accessory maker or retailer who made a profit of XBOX...
Not my fault the heehaw alias is so dumbny... <<
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.
Btw, this is my one and only alias. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class won't you.
<< Open source involves no coercion, and above all it's NOT FAILING. That alone should tell you it's not communism >>
Oh I see... even though open source fits the definition of communism perfectly, since it's not failing it shouldn't be considered communist.
Most failed communist endeavors started off with some success, wonton... it never goes out with a bang... it just dies on the vine because the community "volunteers" lose interest and move on to other things. (typically that's when the whole coercion thing starts to happen...)
When medical care in different countries is compared, the USA comes up, more-or-less, in the middle -- that is, in the middle for people who have coverage. Many people in the US don't have coverage. In spite of all the people who aren't covered, the US still spends roughly twice as much per capita as the other nations.
If our leaders don't get their heads out of the sand, and admit that many other nations provide coverage more efficiently and to more people, medical costs will bankrupt the country. One of the reasons GM is moving so much production to Canada is that they have to pay so much for medical insurance for their US employees.
We could have better healthcare, for more people and for less money if we learned a lesson from the more progressive nations.
>The problem with healthcare is that it is much
>more individually applicable
Not just applicable to drivers, right?
>It's not a big deal if we get mediocre quality
>for our roads from Socialism,
Right, it's not big deal if more drivers end up in the hospital that they cannot afford due to bad roads.
>Healthcare also represents an order of magnitude
>more tax confiscation that road construction.
Oh really? Your proof of that please, if you don't mind. Nobody else seems to be claiming that, including all those countries that provide health care to their citizens. Only, you, from a country that does not. You know it all don't you Soggy. Oh, sounds more like a fart than your voice. You're talking out of the wrong end, as usual.
>But where do you draw the line? Why stop at healthcare...
>what about food? housing? clothing?
I knew you would start that stupid fight, "Once bittin by the socialist bug, it will take over everything!" What an ass you are.
<<But none of the reasons you state on why people contribute to open source have anything to do with Capitalism.>>
I wasn't trying to claim that they did.
<<Such a system of "community charity"...>>
1) Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2) Something given to help the needy; alms.
3) An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4) Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5) Indulgence or forbearance in judging others.
You seem to be redefining "charity" to mean "donating something for *any reason*". Or, in otherwords, "not charging money for something that you could, in theory, have charged money for". I've never heard of anyone but you using such a definition for "charity".
<<Such a system of "community charity" is inherently communist. It's just a fact.>>
Not it's not. Your definition of "communist" is crazy. I'll quote from some of your other posts:
<<That's because Communism seeks to remove the value of everything - everything is just collectively owned, and there is no specific value for anything.>>
This is absurd. The removal of value is a *side effect* of state ownership under Communism, not its *purpose*.
<<In communism, workers toil for the betterment of the "community" rather than individual gain - much like that done in charitable endeavors.>>
Under Communism, peole are *forced* to toil for the betterment of the "community". *That* is the salient aspect of communism. Communists also tend to be firm believers in "to make an ommlet, you have to break a few eggs", so if people start dying while "bettering" the community, so be it.
<<It's so blatantly clear - I don't know why you folks just don't accept it and move on.>>
Because we use a defintion of Communism that 99% of the population will agree with somewhat, quite unlike *your* definition.
<<You'd do much better arguing the benefits of development in this communist model rather than fighting the losing argument that it's not communist in the first place.>>
We do spend a lot of time arguing about the benefits of open source, and very little time arguing that it isn't communistic, because direct accusations that open source is communistic only happen on Internet message boards like this, and is argued by very few people. Right now I'm arguing with you because I find you definition of Communism to be mind boggling.
<<Communism has negative conotations for a reason... perhaps you should try to understand that reason better to gain perspective on the long-term viability of open source.>>
I've read "The Black Book of Communism" (I highly recommend it), so I know full well why communism has negative connotations:
* The forced collectivization of farming in the Soviet Union, which killed millions of people.
* The Cultural Revolution in China.
* The gulag system.
* Secret police.
* No freedom of speech.
* Totalitarian governments.
* And more.
All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with *charity*, much less with simply failing to charge money for something. If charity is communistic, and communism lead to all those horrible things, then no one should do any charity. But comparing communism to charity is absurd.
In fact, the way that you redefine communism is insulting to the memories of all those who suffered and died under communistic regimes.
<< Not just applicable to drivers, right? >>
Healthcare is applied individually, road construction is applied at a broader scale. Unless they're doing driveways nowadays.
<< Right, it's not big deal if more drivers end up in the hospital that they cannot afford due to bad roads. >>
If you had a choice between a mediocre pavement layer to lay your street or a mediocre surgeon to perform an operation on your child, which would you prefer?
<< Your proof of that please, if you don't mind. >>
Healthcare represents about 1/5th of the national economy of the U.S. Spending on road construction is a rounding error in comparison.
<< Nobody else seems to be claiming that, including all those countries that provide health care to their citizens. >>
They should be.
<< I knew you would start that stupid fight, "Once bittin by the socialist bug, it will take over everything!" What an ass you are. >>
You didn't answer the question... why stop at just socialist healthcare? Why not food?
Food is much more important to health than healthcare, isn't it?