IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Tim O'Reilly on who is ethical
First off, thanks for posting the link. I spent a considerable amount of time (time I probably shouldn't have, but, oh, well...) reading most of the threads in that discussion. It was an excellent read and I much appreciate the opportunity.

I believe I know where Tim's coming from and what he's trying to say. After reading much of the discussion they were having, I came to the conclusion that he was trying to make a point using the comparison (taking advantage of the audience's dislike for MS). I don't know how strongly he feels about that actual comparison, though (my guess is that it was there to make a point, and wasn't meant to get too detailed into the depts of ethics).

[link|http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?msn:8031:hlpdhbfgkkkhjgnapmgj|This post from Tim] gives a little more explanation of what he meant (though he's referring more to FSF than RMS here).

I did run across [link|http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?mss:8048:hlpdhbfgkkkhjgnapmgj|this gem] which seemed to me to plainly differenciate the mental-model of hackers (good, bad, or indifferent) and non-hackers:

\n\n    Lynn> Quite the opposite.  Any restriction on our fundamental\n    Lynn> right to copy what we see should be on the terms of the\n    Lynn> people as a whole, not on the terms of those who would\n    Lynn> restrict our rights merely to serve their business model.\n    Lynn> If you can't make money within the terms set by (a properly\n    Lynn> balanced) copyright, you should take your ball and go home.\n    Lynn> I for one don't need your invention/work that badly.  If\n    Lynn> there are people who do, you can sit down negotiate a\n    Lynn> private agreement with them.  Just don't try to take\n    Lynn> advantage of selling on the public market.\n\nQuite the opposite.  Any restriction on our fundamental right to to\nshow our product to only those we choose [privacy], should be on the\nterms of the people as a whole, not on the terms of those who would\nrestrict our rights merely to serve their consumptive appetites.  If\nyou can't sate them within the terms set by (a properly balanced)\ncopyright, you should take your ball and go home.  I for one don't\nneed your money that badly.  If there are people who do, you can sit\ndown and negotiate a private agreement with them.  Just don't try to\ntake advantage of buying on the public market.\n


It's an interesting view of copyright, IMHO.

Again, thanks for the link. Though Tim's point may have used a less-than-appropriate metaphor (and I'm not sure that I agree with him in its use), his point has value (that he's concerned with the FSF and RMS in the their "social" change).

Dan
New You are welcome for the link
That mailing list is one that Karsten introduced me to. Any mailing list which is known to attract Tim O'Reilly, Brian Fox, and Bob Young is doing pretty well for itself.

I am not sure exactly what I am doing on such a list, but in characteristic fashion I don't let details like that keep me from being a blabbermouth. :-)

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
     Tim O'Reilly on who is ethical - (ben_tilly) - (6)
         I think he needs to elaborate. - (Another Scott) - (2)
             Slight disagreement. - (boxley)
             Was that his point? - (static)
         Coercion is wrong. - (imric)
         Re: Tim O'Reilly on who is ethical - (dshellman) - (1)
             You are welcome for the link - (ben_tilly)

NOTE: This video shows people getting hurt falling down a hill on purpose. Viewer discretion advised.
130 ms