Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:20:54 -0800

On Monday, Oct 28, 2002, at 06:25 US/Pacific, Benjamin J. Tilly wrote:

> "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com> wrote:
>> If IBM had understood what they'd unleashed with the commodity 
>> hardware of
>> the PC, they could have become both Dell (the company that best 
>> realized the
>> low-cost potential of commodity hardware) and Microsoft (the company 
>> that
>> best realized the profit potential of monopoly software on top of that
>> commodity hardware platform).  Not to mention Intel.  But they turned 
>> the
>> genie loose and let someone else realize its potential.
>
> I am sure that there is some nice Latin phrase for the
> fallacy that you just committed.  But I don't know Latin,
> and I don't know the phrase.

I don't know about any fallacy, but the issue you, Tim and Stephen are 
talking about was called by Hegel the "dialectic" (hence Marx's 
"Dialectic Materialism").  It's the dialectic of libre software 
development that you _can't_ exploit it without giving it away.

Lesser minds might call it a paradox, but presumably the members of 
this list are people who want to ride that dialectic, not be floored by 
it!

-g

PS: no need to know latin; "dialectic" is bastard-attic 
(greek)-german-admixture.