The projects which are unmaintained are generally projects which have died for a good reason. Please let sleeping dogs lie.
If you really think these projects are totally worthless, all of the comments you made in the first paragraph are totally irrelevant! How (and why) would a "glory hunter" get any cred working on such a project? More to the point, if you really believe what you wrote, who is harmed if a "glory hunter" works on one of these projects, anyway?
In fact this idea could end up harming the project if an inept project manager refuses to step down as the official leader of the project, if and when a more suitable project manager comes along.
I see, so some other, more competent person is going to come along and try to take over this worthless project from the glory hunter? Why would this happen unless the project was doing well? And if the project does do well, then what does that say about your "glory hunter" theory?
The fact that Bill Gates possesses more wealth than serveral entire countries merits some moral condemnation, I believe. If people were not starving and dying of easily and cheaply preventable diseases at this very moment, extremes of inequality might be less outrageous - but, alas, people are starving and dying at this very moment.
Oooh, be careful with that one. Do you give every penny you make above and beyond your basic needs to charity? If you do not, you are guilty of the same moral failing you attribute to Bill Gates or any other wealthy person.
I agree with you--in fact, punishment by shame is in some ways superior to punishment by litigation. It is puts the power back into the hands of individuals to say "I think your behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it" without infringing on the civil rights of the accused. It really addresses the fact that people *know* when they're doing something Wrong, and they deserve to feel bad about it.
I would like to point out that the original purpose of copyrighting was to protect artists, writers and musicians from plagiarism.
In the uncalled-for-comments-category I would like to snidely remark that Metallica thinks that the reason nobody buys their albums is because they can get them for free on the internet, but I think we all know the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
...see "Building a Brainier Mouse" from April's Scientific American. It has a super-cute graphic of a mouse reading Scientific American inside a maze.
Oooh, be careful with that one. Do you give every penny you make above and beyond your basic needs to charity? If you do not, you are guilty of the same moral failing you attribute to Bill Gates or any other wealthy person.
I agree with you--in fact, punishment by shame is in some ways superior to punishment by litigation. It is puts the power back into the hands of individuals to say "I think your behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it" without infringing on the civil rights of the accused. It really addresses the fact that people *know* when they're doing something Wrong, and they deserve to feel bad about it.
I'm inclined to agree with you. A product is worth what a consumer is willing to pay for it, no more, no less.
If there was ever a way to get the musicians on our side, that is the way! That is just an amazingly good idea. I wish I had thought of it.
In the uncalled-for-comments-category I would like to snidely remark that Metallica thinks that the reason nobody buys their albums is because they can get them for free on the internet, but I think we all know the truth.