a textbook illustration of psuedo-reasoning
on
MS VP Speech Online
·
· Score: 1
An interesting piece of MS FUD that's a textbook illustration of psuedo-reasoning combining elements of red-herring, straw man, and false dilemma arguments. Mundie, the MS VP who gave the speech, admits that the GPL is only one of the many licensing schemes known as Open Source. Open Source is portrayed as the alternative to MS's much touted Shared Source model. Open Source is bad because:
"The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain."
Unfortunately, these are mere unsubstantiated claims. Then, seemingly forgetting his own observation that the GPL is only one of many Open Source licenses, Mundie shifts into an all out attack on the GPL. He argues that the GPL is incompatible with IP (which it is, I think). IP, he claims, is basis of any successful business model. This is one of my favorite parts where he likens the GPL to a virus:
"The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it." (my emphasis)
Therefore, since the GPL is BAD, the only remaining alternative is Microsoft's Shared Source model.
In this argument, the GPL becomes almost a red-herring. Although it's not entirely irrelevant to the debate about Open Source vs. Shared Source, it's only a small part of that debate. It's also a bit of a straw man, because the GPL is not equivalent to Open Source, so knocking down the GPL is not knocking down Open Source. Finally, it's a false dilemma because other Open Source licenses are ignored, such as the far more business favorable BSD license. Consequently, one cannot conclude that MS's Shared Source model is the better alternative because not all alternatives have been considered. Maybe if he'd taken a philosophy class or three he could've devised a less obviously fallacious argument.
Although Lessig really kicks the s**t out of Valenti, frequently leaving him unable (or unwilling) to defend his views to the laughter of the audience, Valenti makes a really potent point: the exportation of "intelluctual property" is currently the USA's biggest money maker. His implicit position is that we should do whatever is necessary, even to the extent of undermining the Constitution, to protect our revenue. Like it or not, money carries a lot of weight, so even if Lessig's decisively won the intellectual debate, the unpleasant fact that so much money is at stake may carry the day for Valenti and his cronies. Lessig should have also argued, when he pointed out that increasing the flow of ideas increases creative production, that this will enhance, not detract from, our revenue from the sale of intellectual property by increasing that increasing the amount of product that we have for sale, even if said product is only available for sale for a shorter time due to the shorter copyrights that Lessig advocates. Although I think that point is implicit in Lessig's argument, it doesn't hurt to make it explicit. Rhetoric is all about pounding your point home.
Personally, although I was able to get greater color depths with Accelerated-X, I could never get the resolutions to which I've become accustomed to in XFree and windows. Accelerated-X claimed my hardware was not capable of 1600x1200 at any refresh rate or color depth, yet it clearly is, since that's the resolution I have running on XFree as I type this.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting piece of MS FUD that's a textbook illustration of psuedo-reasoning combining elements of red-herring, straw man, and false dilemma arguments. Mundie, the MS VP who gave the speech, admits that the GPL is only one of the many licensing schemes known as Open Source. Open Source is portrayed as the alternative to MS's much touted Shared Source model. Open Source is bad because:
"The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain."
Unfortunately, these are mere unsubstantiated claims. Then, seemingly forgetting his own observation that the GPL is only one of many Open Source licenses, Mundie shifts into an all out attack on the GPL. He argues that the GPL is incompatible with IP (which it is, I think). IP, he claims, is basis of any successful business model. This is one of my favorite parts where he likens the GPL to a virus:
"The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it." (my emphasis)
Therefore, since the GPL is BAD, the only remaining alternative is Microsoft's Shared Source model.
In this argument, the GPL becomes almost a red-herring. Although it's not entirely irrelevant to the debate about Open Source vs. Shared Source, it's only a small part of that debate. It's also a bit of a straw man, because the GPL is not equivalent to Open Source, so knocking down the GPL is not knocking down Open Source. Finally, it's a false dilemma because other Open Source licenses are ignored, such as the far more business favorable BSD license. Consequently, one cannot conclude that MS's Shared Source model is the better alternative because not all alternatives have been considered. Maybe if he'd taken a philosophy class or three he could've devised a less obviously fallacious argument.
"softmore" ?!?!?! Boy, the spelling on this site is atroshus.
Although Lessig really kicks the s**t out of Valenti, frequently leaving him unable (or unwilling) to defend his views to the laughter of the audience, Valenti makes a really potent point: the exportation of "intelluctual property" is currently the USA's biggest money maker. His implicit position is that we should do whatever is necessary, even to the extent of undermining the Constitution, to protect our revenue. Like it or not, money carries a lot of weight, so even if Lessig's decisively won the intellectual debate, the unpleasant fact that so much money is at stake may carry the day for Valenti and his cronies. Lessig should have also argued, when he pointed out that increasing the flow of ideas increases creative production, that this will enhance, not detract from, our revenue from the sale of intellectual property by increasing that increasing the amount of product that we have for sale, even if said product is only available for sale for a shorter time due to the shorter copyrights that Lessig advocates. Although I think that point is implicit in Lessig's argument, it doesn't hurt to make it explicit. Rhetoric is all about pounding your point home.
Personally, although I was able to get greater color depths with Accelerated-X, I could never get the resolutions to which I've become accustomed to in XFree and windows. Accelerated-X claimed my hardware was not capable of 1600x1200 at any refresh rate or color depth, yet it clearly is, since that's the resolution I have running on XFree as I type this.
They make some of the most ergonomic and coolest looking office furniture ever. It doesn't come cheap, but what worth having does?