Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 16:59 UTC
Editorial Holier-than-thou, an adjective, meaning "marked by an air of superior piety or morality". Everybody has moments in their life where they get into a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and I think Steve Jobs' open letter regarding Adobe, and Flash in particular, really fits the bill. There are three specific points I want to address to illustrate just how holier-than-thou, hypocritical, and misleading this letter really is.
Thread beginning with comment 421478
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Great one, but
by kragil on Thu 29th Apr 2010 18:01 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

It has a lot of good points.

But it misses the endgame. Charging people in any way for making copies of bits is immoral.(Apple and MS are doing that on a fairly regular basis.) You can ask for money for services, but the act of copying bits has no cost and hence has to be free.

Anything else is just old simple minded analog thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbcy_ZxXLl8

Reply Score: 2

RE: Great one, but
by nt_jerkface on Thu 29th Apr 2010 19:49 in reply to "Great one, but"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You can ask for money for services, but the act of copying bits has no cost and hence has to be free.

Anything else is just old simple minded analog thinking.


It's deluded thinking to believe that the Red Hat model can be used for all types of software. I just went over this on my blog:
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2010/04/advertising-in-open-source.html

Such thinking comes from a bitter old man who doesn't care about software economics and just has a grudge against closed source. How is his Hurd project going by the way? He has so much faith in the holy power of open source and yet his own software project is still unfinished.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Great one, but - hurd?
by jabbotts on Fri 30th Apr 2010 12:53 in reply to "RE: Great one, but"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Why drudge up Hurd?

Linux
GNOME
KDE
Apache
Firefox
Thunderbird

There seems to be quite a bit of successful examples to draw on and some of them are not remotely licensed under GPL.

And since you mention Hurd, are you suggesting that there are no failing closed source development projects? They are automatically successful because they don't happen to relate to an angry man and one of many different OS kernels?

Edited 2010-04-30 12:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Great one, but
by Zifre on Thu 29th Apr 2010 20:41 in reply to "Great one, but"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Let me just start by saying that I use Linux and open source exclusively and don't like proprietary software at all.

That said, you are very incorrect.

Charging people in any way for making copies of bits is immoral.

Why? It indeed costs nearly $0 to make a copy of bits, but those bits would not exist without the money. By your reasoning, all of the cost of a book should go toward printing and physically creating the book, and the author should not get a dime.

You can ask for money for services, but the act of copying bits has no cost and hence has to be free.

By saying "making copies of bits" you make those bits sound less important than they really are. Those bits are the music you listen to, the books you read, and maybe some of the software you use. In many cases, those bits would not exist without the author getting paid.

If you believe that is immoral, fine, morality is specific to each person. But reality isn't. The world would simply be a very different place without copyright.

Anything else is just old simple minded analog thinking.

I think the thing you are missing is that, for example, the e-book is the direct equivalent of a real book, and should be valued as such (minus the printing costs). You are trying to make digital works seem somehow inherently different than physical works, when it is really just a different medium.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Great one, but
by Beta on Thu 29th Apr 2010 22:29 in reply to "RE: Great one, but"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

"Charging people in any way for making copies of bits is immoral.

Why? It indeed costs nearly $0 to make a copy of bits, but those bits would not exist without the money.
"

Why not? The original bits would not exist without the money. Whereas the duplicate bits only required the cost to produce them, nearly £0.
You’re incorrectly assuming ‘worth’ should be transferred upon duplication.

Reply Parent Score: 2