Open Source And The Obligation To Recycle

Lisa writes "Tim O'Reilly has a piece called "Open Source and the Obligation to Recycle" in his weblog, where he urges every company whose products are "obsolete" to consider making them available under an open source license, or putting them in the public domain, thereby enriching the soil of our collective commons. (Interestingly, the first posting on the weblog disagrees, saying "...Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else.)""

Comments

Not really.

[dnight]

"...Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else.)""

Most companies fail due to inept management and/or marketing. Thier products are not alway to blame...

Unless we're talking about Cuecat. :)

Re:What about Eazel.

[Mark Pitman]

He may have left out Nautilus because it was open source from the start.

Object Oriented and Quantum Mechanics

[Alien54]

IBM had at least one paper looking into OOP and it's relationship to Quantum Mechanics. The best paper is entitled "Is Schrager's Cat Object-Oriented?", which you can download as a pdf, etc. (yes, that is the name of the paper on the site)

This may be useful in the broader perspective of applying OOP to real life. There are plenty of papers up on the IBM site that are worthwhile, even if searching for them could be inconvenient.