On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:33:33AM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
> >
> Seriously, this should go off list or something soon. It's turned  
> into a SlashDot thread almost.

Probably.  Of course, considering you don't seem to be arguing against
what was actually said, I'm not sure there's a real discussion to take
off-list.


> I'm not denying you the term 'artificial scarcity'
> what I see is that markets are not necessarily about scarcity.

I didn't say markets are about scarcity, either.  I'm not even sure what
you mean by that.


> If we have a thousand lemons, one person who wants one lemon and you  
> offer them for free and I sell it with a contract that says I  
> guarantee or not this and that blah blah, and the person decides to  
> buy mine, then it is entirely a freedom of choice on the consumer.  
> Nobody is forced to purchase anything as there is no lemon monopoly.  
> The consumer simply decides they want the one that they have to pay  
> for. For whatever reasons they decide they want that one.
> Open source comes with no more guarantees of support or viability or  
> longevity than closed source. Consumers have a choice. Individuals or  
> organizations. They make choices. You make a choice in your  
> licensing, but don't force your license on others. If one company  
> sells a packaged linux distro and another gives it away and people  
> choose one or the other, that is where freedom is!

Providing support is one potential business model that leverages open
source software, so the statement that there's no such thing as support
for open source software isn't really entirely accurate (or, conversely,
the implication that there *is* necessarily support for closed source
software isn't really entirely accurate).

Neither open nor closed source software *gaurantees* longevity, but the
mechanisms and opportunities for longevity are greater with open source
software, and the mechanisms and opportunities for premature (in terms of
demand) removal of closed source software are greater than those of open
source software.

In any case, I don't think anyone said anything in this discussion about
"forcing" a license on anyone.  This whole subthread began with the
statements made by a couple of people to the effect that, all else being
equal, open source software is a better bet for their purposes -- and
with the fact that some people who appear to like TextMate too umbrage at
the suggestion that (for the people who prefer open source software, at
least) closed source software suffers some limitations in terms of its
probable longevity.  There's nothing about guarantees in that, nor about
forcing anyone to use a particular license.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."