Subject: Re: Competition by internal expertise for F/OSS vendors
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:26:11 +0900

Thomas Lord writes:
 > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > > Tim O'Reilly writes:
 > >
 > >  > And also FWIW, I've been castigated as recently as last year by the  
 > >  > FSF for saying that.
 > >
 > > This is not a surprise. 
 > That isn't what Eben castigated Tim for.  Eben castigated Tim
 > for helping to invent and promote the concept of "open source"
 > and accused him of profiting from the problems that effort
 > caused.

That's old news too.  All I can say is I'm tired of hearing from
"genius fellowship" winners and well-paid lawyers that other people
are sinful for making money.  *You* (in your hairshirt) I'll take that

But it should not be about profit period.

 > In the video in question Eben describes services like
 > Google as (paraphrased): "the largest private intelligence
 > service / secret police ever assembled."  Or words to that
 > effect.    I think that they have a fairly clear picture of the
 > capabilities of "web 2.0" and their implications.

Oh, come off it.  That's terrible evidence that they understand the
capabilities and implications (in *general*).  It doesn't take a
Weatherman to figure out which way that hurricane is blowing.

 > The strategy:  engage in diplomacy with those service
 > providers and push as hard as you can on all forms of
 > truly personal computing in software freedom.

But that's precisely where Tim claims Eben didn't want to go.

 > > If it would help to have a more precise query: It looks to me like an
 > > Open Software Service Definition is something whose time has come,
 > No, it hasn't.
 > That needs to come from the engineering community and it
 > needs to be a norm of professional behavior.

I didn't say otherwise.

 > What we need in a "[reasonable person] Service Definition" is
 > a code that operates as a code of conduct for the engineers that
 > actually build services.

And you've actually devoted thought to what it should look like.  So
you agree that its time has come, although you may not be in a hurry
to post a broken one.

 > I don't see the potential for that yet.   There's too much
 > namby-pamby "open source" pseudo-libertarian gibberish
 > going around at the moment.

'naby-pamby "open source" pseudo-libertarian gibberish'?  That very
swipe puts you in the same class!