Re: top posting and flame

  Stephen> Tom, as far as I can see your claim that Canonical exploits
  Stephen> you by using your *previously released* software is
  Stephen> equivalent to the counterclaim that you want to exploit
  Stephen> Mr. S's business acumen by sharing in his *past* revenue
  Stephen> streams (Canonical is not yet above water AFAIK).

  That is not quite my claim, as I believe I've said.  My claim is a
  little subtle, so I understand your confusion.  To simplify a bit:

* "ex-ploit (v): to make use of selfishly or unethically" [1]

  1. I claim that the behavior of Canonical's agents caused unjust harm
     to me personally and to a public project.   This claim is not
     equivalent to a legal claim, of course.  So, part of what I am
     saying is that, morally, Canonical should work to find
     mutually agreeable ways of compensating for that harm.
     If you want to fit that into your economic analysis, think
     about how to measure the economic value of being a community
     member in good standing.  (As I put it to Mark, "Replace your
     divots!" -- an ethical principle of The Commons if ever there
     was one.)

  2. I claim that there is more to a free software project than
     simply the sequence of tar-bundles containing source code
     releases.  Much of what "else" there is is very abstract:
     allocations of attention, intellectual momentum, group dynamics,
     etc.   Though fragile and difficult to delineate, those "other"
     elements are where the true value resides -- it is analogous to
     a portion of the "health" of the commons.   It is the state
     of the groundskeepers and gardners.  To the extent one grazes
     one's cattle on the commons, one has a social responsibility to
     protect that groundskeeper/gardner state.

  Aside: "Always motivate from the positive," is the wisest sales and
  marketing advice (and among the wisest general life advice) I've
  ever heard.  Well, there is figure and ground, no?  Can not one
  emphasize the figure (the positive) by darkening the ground?
  Sometimes it seems necessary.

* "ex-ploit (v): to employ to the greatest possible advantage; utilize" [1]

  You start burbling about "*previously released* software" and I am
  disappointed to find you stuck in an overly simplistic economic
  model.

  Yes, of course, the bits in a tar bundle of free software non-rival
  but that is almost exactly the least interesting thing one could say
  about them.

  From the corporate perspective, the free software world is comprised
  not of tar bundles but of projects.  The business opportunities
  arising as a result of the existence of those projects are quite
  rival.  The set of projects is a scarce but renewable resource.
  The vitality of that resource of projects depends in no small
  part on the economic value of taking the risk of starting one.

  Having recognized that he obtained value for what I had already done,
  in my project, Mark would have simply been *wise* to bet *for* *rather
  than invest against* my *future work*.


-t

[1] "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language",
    Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981


P.S.: Minor points

    Thomas> I was, in my view, offered money to create a hostile fork
    Thomas> of my own project

    Stephen> Apt description.  So Mr. S showed you the respect due to
    Stephen> a potential competitor who could be a big advantage if
    Stephen> converted to an ally.  I really think it's unbecoming of
    Stephen> you to deny that (implicitly).  It *is* respect for your
    Stephen> expertise.

  No, no -- the ethical principal in my family is that yes, you *may*
  respect the *expertise* but *certainly* you must respect the *man*.

  I suppose that in economic terms the explanation comes from the fact
  that the respect for the man inspires, at the very least, future
  experts to create themselves.


    Stephen> Oh, come on.  "Software is forever." 

  Nonsense.  Sheer, utter, nonsense.  Well... most of the time.
  Nearly all of the time.  With some exceptions.  In theory.  Maybe.


-t