It seems strange to me that some of the same people who use the defense that technology isn't bad, just certain uses of technology are bad are now the same ones arguing that this particular piece of technology is bad.
Technology, in my opinion, is not "good" or "bad". It just depends on how it is used. One could probably even argue on the "for" side of massively destructive bombs. After all, how else will we blow up those asteroids that are headed for us?
From my experience: 1- Reading Corel's licenses. 2- Installing Corel's (downloadable) version of Linux. 3- Looking at Corel's partnerships. 4- Trying to understand Corel's long-term visions. I've come to the conclusion that Corel is not interested in Free or even Open Source software. Nor are they interested, per se, in the success of Linux. Their motivation seems to be related ONLY to destroying the Microsoft monopoly. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it's just that I think it's important to remember that Corel's motivations are not the same as our own, or at least MY own.
Although the article was well-written and perhaps interesting, it's important to note a few things:
Free Software does NOT need money to survive. It has been developed for years and will continue to be developed, even if it is never commercialized. This is one point that most of these essays miss -- most Free Software projects are neither motivated by nor dependent upon money. Although the author talks a bit about "respect" and the "gift culture", he still seems to imply that financial rewards are somehow necessary.
Anyone's prediction on what will happen with the recent courtship between commercial and Free Software is just that: a prediction. My guess is that no one can really know what this courtship will bring.
Every economic system has its strengths and weaknesses. If you were to speak with some Cuban citizens about their everyday life, I am sure you would find things about their system you would like. Undoubtedly, they may find things about yours that they would like.
David Korten puts forth a solid effort to point out some of the flaws in Corporate Capitalism as we know it in _When_Corporations_Rule_the_World_. It's worth a read:
Slashdot Mirror
It seems strange to me that some of the same people who use the defense that technology isn't bad, just certain uses of technology are bad are now the same ones arguing that this particular piece of technology is bad.
Technology, in my opinion, is not "good" or "bad". It just depends on how it is used. One could probably even argue on the "for" side of massively destructive bombs. After all, how else will we blow up those asteroids that are headed for us?
From my experience: 1- Reading Corel's licenses. 2- Installing Corel's (downloadable) version of Linux. 3- Looking at Corel's partnerships. 4- Trying to understand Corel's long-term visions. I've come to the conclusion that Corel is not interested in Free or even Open Source software. Nor are they interested, per se, in the success of Linux. Their motivation seems to be related ONLY to destroying the Microsoft monopoly. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it's just that I think it's important to remember that Corel's motivations are not the same as our own, or at least MY own.
Every economic system has its strengths and weaknesses. If you were to speak with some Cuban citizens about their everyday life, I am sure you would find things about their system you would like. Undoubtedly, they may find things about yours that they would like.
1 1/qid=920905821/sr=1-2/002-7877656-9992226
David Korten puts forth a solid effort to point out some of the flaws in Corporate Capitalism as we know it in _When_Corporations_Rule_the_World_. It's worth a read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/18872080
My only point is that any system can always be improved. Ignoring that fact is both negligent and dangerous.