Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Maybe OT, reprap build started

After thinking about this a little there are a few more things I would like
to say. This is not the first time I have been shouted down by people who
don't want the room to hear certain questions or ideas. I suspect that what
has happened to the open source initiative or movement or whatever they call
themselves now is the same thing that has happened to countless other
well-intentioned ideas. The inability to anticipate all the ways in which
their ideas can be corrupted, perverted, twisted or inverted for the
personal benefit of individuals who don't share the ideals of the the
inventor is a common failing among those who live by principle. In a better
world it would not be a failing, but a virtue.

There is a lot of debate over who invented open source. Some say it was
Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU project. But he disavows
responsibility. Looking at the names of those who claim to have invented it,
we can clearly see who did not. A little like Al Gore inventing the
internet. What probably happened was some programmer had a flash of insight
and talked it up among his friends, who saw the benefits and spread the word
until somebody who knew a lawyer willing to draft a license put the thing on
the legal map. Like most real inventors, he or she probably will never get
credit in this world.

When I first heard of it I wondered why any programmer would work so hard
for no other benefit than MAYBE getting his name on the credits. I debated
the question at length with the local Linux user group. When I understood
the motives I realized how easy it would be to take advantage of them.
Obviously so did lots of others. Here is how it's done:

You start with some commercial- or near-commercial-quality software, and
publish it under GPL. You make it accessible. Independent programmers start
improving it and sending you their improvements. Most of it is trash, but
there are gems in the garbage. You cherry-pick these and add them to your
private code base, integrating them in a consistent user interface. When you
have a truly outstanding product you publish a Major Revision. Only now it
is not accessible. Sure, you obey the letter of the law, but there are lots
of ways to obfuscate source code. Then you sell binary copies or consulting
services, or otherwise take financial advantage of whatever edge your
position affords you. All perfectly legal.

We all know law is no obstacle to intelligent corruption. Law keeps a boot
on the necks of only the stupid criminals. The rest go into politics. No
doubt some here will shrilly proclaim that obviously I am one of those
cynical business people who take advantage of the GPL, otherwise how would I
understand it so well? I'm not. Besides, "But, he's doing it too!" is no
excuse.

Not satisfied with ripping off programmers, some savvy biz genius decided
why not use the same idea with hardware? Never mind that it makes no sense
unless you're talking about FPGA HDL. It has a nice ring about it and the
term is vaguely understood by the general public. It's an automatic brand of
righteousness. Well, I say not. Just business, you might say. Just like the
thug holding a silenced .22 to the back of your head before he blows out
your candle. Just business. Nothing personal, though you'd never know it
from the tone of some of these posts. I guess we all failed to teach our
kids Decorum.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Too much time here already. I'm
spending more time on productive activities until some other topic dominates
this forum.

--Phil M.