Re: Exploitation defined

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <[email protected]> writes:

    Thomas> You can't brush aside ethical obligations by saying "It's
    Thomas> just a business."

I do not.  I simply wish to say that the ethical obligations on a
business, with its (by design) impersonal relations *with human
persons*, are going to be quite a bit different from the ethical
obligations that obtain in a human-to-human relationship.

In particular, business ethics do not involve anything like the
Hippocratic Oath.

    Thomas> I won't be surprised if you say that *I* was that clueless
    Thomas> person

*chuckle*  Nope.  Nor were there any subtle imputations anywhere.

    >> The only thing I do believe is that you will be happier and
    >> more productive if you "just get over it", and figure out how
    >> to deal with the world as it is.

    Thomas> As opposed to?  This is the world as it is: I have time
    Thomas> and incentive to think about and comment on these things.

Good question.  The main issue I'm thinking about is that, as I just
wrote, business ethics do not contain a principle of doing no harm.
There are almost never deals where *everybody* wins all the time.  Any
time a buyer and a seller make a deal, other buyers and other sellers
are shut out.  Even in a commodity market.

Even between a buyer and a seller, there's good reason to suppose that
one or both is going to lose, because they are typically unsuccessful
in fully communicating the buyer's needs to the seller.  Since the
seller gets money, of universal value, it's mostly "caveat *emptor*"
since the buyer is getting an uncertain value (until he's got it in
hand).  But it's not the seller's job to take care of the buyer's
needs, unless the deal makes it so.

    Thomas> [Arch] was largely funded by the public.  Intended as and
    Thomas> funded as a public project -- I think it qualifies as
    Thomas> such.

"Funded by the public"?  Was I or was I not correct when I suggested
that many of the members of the "public" are now Canonical employees
and fellow travelers?  If so, who has the sanction of being the
"public's" project now?

    Thomas> Yeah, inciting that frog-jumping behavior is another way
    Thomas> to express my same-old-same-old say-it-again-and-again
    Thomas> ten-different-ways-from-tuesday beef with, not *only*
    Thomas> Canonical but a lot of other stuff.

But who needs to incite?  Frogs jump, man, that's what they do!  It
won't change anything to beef about a frog that jumps, a dog that
barks, a bee that stings.  Blow off steam, sure, but no change.

    Thomas> It's worth a little sweat to cultivate the land you graze.
    Thomas> That's all I'm sayin'.

Again, horses don't have hands.  They "pay forward" to their riders,
not "back" to the grass.

    >> While any additional value you produce in terms of unforeseen
    >> types of software is likely to be balanced by your disruptive
    >> effects on the business.

    Thomas> Labeling what had been objectively rare productivity
    Thomas> "disruptive"

Excellent point!  Rare productivity often is labeled "disruptive" in
an organization, because it *is*.  It screws up all the average
managers, and often your co-workers, if any, leaving you isolated---
the social fabric disrupted.

Rare productivity in the idea realm is even worse.  You know what the
automobile did to horse buggy makers, what contact with "modern"
societies does to socially sophisticated but technologically backward
societies.

Just because it will make things better for everybody in the not so
long run doesn't mean it isn't disruptive in the short run.

(Sorry for the troll.  Wasn't intentional, I meant it the way you took
it.  Nevertheless ...)

    Thomas> Bits rot.

"Bit rot" is a social phenomenon, not a technical one.  *Especially*
in the case of free software, and *most particularly so* in the case
of a self-hosting SCM.  Software is forever.




-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.