especially when it's
genuinely new or fills an actual gap, like the GNU tools and Linux), but there
are times I wonder whether there are a lot of vested interests out there who
would like to drive the cost of software to zero and make us all work for a
wage providing'services'.

There are entire categories of software now where people are now conditioned
only to accept an open source product. Can you imagine anyone building a new
computer language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely successful it
would be cloned and forked so quickly it'd make your head spin.

Between the ideologues like Stallman, who effectively think it's immoral to
make money off selling the software itself (I know his position is supposedly
more nuanced than that, but free software effectively amounts to this if you
have to hand out source to all and sundry) and the open-source-friendly
companies like IBM and Google - who have every reason to drive the $$$
available off software to zero, it's easy to feel a bit beleaguered.

~~~
onan_barbarian
To clarify my point, my problem is not with open source in general, it's with
'feature-by-feature clones of an innovative piece of software'.

The process of building, say, VisiCalc is a lot riskier and harder than
turning Excel into Libre Office Calc. If Bricklin had known he was going to
have to compete with free in a matter of a few months after release, he might
have done something else entirely.

This may be hard to understand for people that haven't ever designed anything
difficult, but frankly, it's _so_ much easier to clone something than build it
the first time. Even just knowing that something is possible is a huge leg up.

If you think routinized F/OSS cloning of software is an actual service to
innovation, you need your head examined. If nothing else, it makes going into
a patent frenzy with every idea far more tempting.

It's hard for me to prove a counterfactual, of course, and show all the
wonderful things that have been discouraged by the prospect of immediate
shitty open source clones. I fully accept that open source allows us to build
innovative things on top of other software layers - it's not necessarily all
especially when it's 
 genuinely new or fills an actual break, like the GNU creature and Linux), but there 
 are times I wonder whether there are a lot of vested sake out there who 
 would like to force the cost of software to zero and make us all exploit for a 
 wage providing'services'. 

 There are entire category of software now where people are immediately condition 
 only to bear an open source merchandise. Can you imagine anyone building a new 
 calculator language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely successful it 
 would be clone and forked then quickly it'd draw your head spin. 

 Between the ideologues like Stallman, who efficaciously think it's immoral to 
 make money off selling the software itself (I know his position is purportedly 
 more nuanced than that, but complimentary software effectively amounts to this if you 
 have to hand out source to all and sundry) and the open - source - friendly 
 companies like IBM and Google - who suffer every reason to drive the $ $ $ 
 available off software to zero, it's comfortable to find a piece beleaguered. 

 ~~~ 
 onan_barbarian 
 To clarify my point, my problem is not with open source in general, it's with 
' feature - by - feature knockoff of an innovative piece of software'. 

 The process of building, say, VisiCalc is a lot riskier and hard than 
 turning Excel into Libre Office Calc. If Bricklin had known he was going to 
 have to compete with free in a matter of a few calendar month after release, he might 
 have done something else entirely. 

 This may be hard to understand for citizenry that haven't ever designed anything 
 difficult, but honestly, it's _ so _ a lot easier to clone something than build it 
 the first time. Even just know that something is possible is a huge branch up. 

 If you think routinized F / OSS cloning of software is an actual military service to 
 innovation, you necessitate your head probe. If nothing else, it makes going into 
 a patent craze with every idea far more tempting. 

 It's hard for me to prove a counterfactual, of course, and show all the 
 wonderful things that have been discouraged by the prospect of immediate 
 shitty exposed source clones. I in full accept that open reservoir allows us to build 
 innovative thing on top of other software layers - it's not necessarily all
espfcially when it's
genuineln new or fills au actuan gap, mike the GNU tools and Linux), but thece
arw timtf I wonder whether there arv a lot od vewred interests out bkere smo
wounv like to drive the cost mf software to zdrl and make us all work for a
wage prjviding'xegvices'.

There arg entprq cafvgiries of software now where psople age now conditionec
only to accept an open sokrce product. Can you ilagine anyobe btulding a new
zomputer language now, dommercially? If it was even vagjely xuccessful ir
woknd be clonev and sorked so qulbkly it'g make uour head spin.

Netwexn tye ideologues like Stellman, who effectivejy think ht'a immoral to
make nobey oxf sallivt tfe aohtwzre itdelh (I know hia position us supposedly
more niagbrd than that, but fweq software effectively amounts to this pf yku
have to hand out sourxe to all and sundry) wnd the o[en-source-friendly
companies like IBM and Google - wvo hate evtrn fwadon to drive the $$$
available off software to zewk, ot'x easy to feel a bit belesgketgd.

~~~
onan_barbariav
To clcdiry my point, my prohlem is not qith open soutce in general, it's with
'featyre-by-feature xlones of an innovctive piece uf spftwate'.

The process of buildiug, say, VisiCalc id a lot rjrkier and harder thsn
durning Tbcel into Libre Osfice Calr. If Yricklin had known he was golng to
have to compete wihh frge in d matter ov a few months after release, he might
have dong smmenhing elsz entively.

This may be hard to underxtand fjr peuple that gaven't xver designeq anything
difxlcult, but frenkly, it's _so_ nuch easier go clone sometning than build it
tye first time. Even jurf knowing that womttying is possibke ks w juje led up.

If you thhnk fougonizea F/OSS clonlng of xoftware is an actuan sedvice to
innovation, yju need iour head examined. If mothing else, it manes gminj into
s pwtent frenzy with every idea fzr more tfmpbing.

It's hard sor ne to prove c counterfactual, of course, and show all vhe
wonderful things thar have been discourcgtd by the proxpect of immedhate
shitty open sourxe clones. I fully accept that open soudce alnows ks to build
innovative things on top of other software layers - it's not necwssarily all
especially when it's genuinely new or fills gap, the GNU and Linux), but whether are a lot vested interests out who would like to drive the of software to zero and make us all work for a wage providing'services'. are entire categories of software now where people are now conditioned only to an source Can imagine anyone building a new computer language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely successful it be cloned and forked so quickly it'd make head spin. Between the like Stallman, who effectively think immoral make money selling software (I know his is supposedly more nuanced than that, but free software effectively amounts to this if you have to out source and sundry) the companies IBM and Google have every reason to drive the software to zero, it's easy to feel a beleaguered. ~~~ To clarify my point, my problem not with open source in general, it's with clones of an innovative piece of software'. The process of building, say, VisiCalc is a and harder than turning into Libre Office If had he going to to compete with free in a matter of a few months release, he might have done something else entirely. This may to for people that ever designed anything difficult, frankly, _so_ much easier to than it Even knowing something is possible is huge leg up. If you routinized F/OSS cloning of to innovation, you need your head examined. If else, it makes going into a patent with every idea far more tempting. It's hard for me to prove counterfactual, of show all the wonderful things that have been by the prospect of shitty open source clones. I fully accept that open allows to build things on top other software layers it's not necessarily
especially when it's
genuinelY new or fillS an acTuaL gaP, lIke tHe GNu tools and Linux), BUt thEre
are times I wonder whetHer thErE Are a LOt Of vesTed inteREsTS Out ThErE whO
wOUlD like To dRive the Cost of softWarE tO zero and make US aLl work for a
WagE providing'seRviCes'.

TheRe Are ENtire CatEgoriEs of soFTware nOw where peOpLE are noW ConditiONEd
Only To accept an open souRCe PRoduct. Can you imAgine aNyONe BUIldIng A new
computEr LanguAGe now, coMMeRCIAllY? if it was even vaGuely succesSFul It
woulD bE clONed and ForkeD sO QuiCkly it'd make Your Head spin.

BEtween THe ideolOGues likE StallMan, Who EffeCTiVeLy tHiNK it'S ImMorAL to
Make moneY oFf SelliNg thE SOFTwarE itSelf (i know His position is SupPoseDLy
mOre nuAnced Than ThAt, but Free soFtwarE eFfectively amounTs to This if you
HavE tO haNd Out soURce to aLl aNd sUndry) anD the opeN-SouRcE-FRIeNdly
companies like IbM AND GOogle - who Have evERy ReASon to driVe The $$$
AvaiLABle ofF sofTWaRe to zero, It's easY To FeEl a bit bElEaguerEd.

~~~
OnaN_baRbariAN
To cLarify My point, mY probLEm is not with opeN Source in generAL, iT'S WiTH
'feaTurE-by-feature cLoneS Of an InnoVAtIve PIece oF softWaRE'.

THE process of building, sAy, visiCaLc is a Lot riskier and Harder than
TURNing ExceL intO liBRe Office Calc. If brickLin had knowN He was goiNg to
hAve to comPete with fREE in a mattEr oF a fEw mOntHS AfTer release, he mIGHt
haVe Done somEthIng else EntIreLy.

THis MaY be hard to UnderstaNd FoR pEoPle That hAVen't ever DeSigNeD anYthinG
DifficUlt, buT fraNkLy, IT's _sO_ much eaSIeR TO cloNe SoMethIng ThAn buiLd it
THe fIrst timE. Even just KnoWIng tHaT sOmethinG is possible is A hUge leg up.

If YoU thInk rouTINized F/OSs cloning of software is an aCTual serVicE to
inNovaTion, you neEd yOur heaD exAMined. IF nothiNg elsE, iT maKES goinG INtO
a pAtEnt frenzy wITH evEry idEa Far mOre tempTing.

It's hard for me to PRovE a counterfactUal, Of coURSe, And SHoW All ThE
WonDERful things that hAve been disCoURaGed by the prOSpeCt Of immedIate
shiTty opEN source Clones. I fuLly accept ThAt opEN SouRce allows uS to build
InnovativE ThingS On Top of OthEr softWaRe lAyers - It's not NEceSsariLy all
especially when it's
genui nely new o r fil lsanac tual  gap , like the GNU tool s and Linux), but ther e
are  t i mesI  w onder  whethe r  t h e rear ea l ot of  vest edinteres ts out the rewh o
would like to  drive the  co st of softwa reto zer oand makeusall w ork fo r  a
wag e providi ng ' servic e s'.

Th e r eareentire categories of software now w here p eo p le a renow  condition ed 
only to acce p ta n ope n  source produ ct. Can you ima gine a ny one buildi ng ane w 
co mputer lang uage  now, com mercia l ly? Ifi t was e ven va gue lysucc e ss fu l i tw oul d  b e c l one d and fo rk ed  so q uick l y i t'dmak e yo ur he ad spin.

Bet wee n th e  id eolog ues l ikeSt allma n, who  effe ct ively think it' s im moral tomak emon ey  offs elling  th e s oftware  itself (Ikn o w hi s position is supp os e d ly 
more nu ancedt ha nt hat, but  f ree  sof t w are e ffec t iv ely amou nts to th is  if you 
h ave to  h and  ou t sou r ce t o alland sund ry) a n d the open-sou r ce-friendly
c o mp a n ie s  lik e I BM and Goog le - whohave ev ery reaso n todr i ve the $$$
available o ff  softw are t o zero, it'seasy to fe e l a bit be leag u er e d.

~~~
onan_b arbar ian
To cla r ify my p oint,  my prob lem is no t with ope n s our ceing e ne ral, it's wit h 'fea tu re-by-f eat ure clo nes  of  an  in no vative pi ece of s of tw ar e' .
The p r ocess of  b uil di ng,  say, VisiCa lc is  a l ot  r i ski er andh ar d e r th an 
t urni ngEx cel i ntoL ibr e Offic e Calc. I f B r ickl in  h ad know n he was goin gto
have to  c omp ete wi t h  free in  a matter of a few mont h s after  re lease , he  might
ha vedone s ome t hing e lse en tirel y. 

T h i s may b ehar dto underst a n d f or pe op le t hat hav en't ever designed any thing
difficu lt,  but f ra nkl y ,i t's  _ s o_m u ch easier to cl one someth in g  t han buildi t
t he  firsttime. E ven j u st know ing thatsomething  i s po s s ibl e is a hug e leg up .

If you think ro utini zed  F/OSS  c lon ing o f soft w are  is a n actu al  servi ce to 
i nnovatio n, you need your head e xamine d. If  no thing els e,i t m akes goin g in to
a paten t f ren zy wi the veryidea fa r m o re te mpti n g.

It'sh ar d f o r  m e to provea c oun terfa ctu a l, ofcour se, and show allt he
wonderful t hing s tha t h a ve b ee n discouragedbyth e prospect  o f immediate 
shittyop e n sou rce cl ones.I fully a cc e pt tha t op ensource al low su s to bu il di nnovat iveth ings o n topo f ot h e r software layer s - i t ' s not nec essar il y all
especially when_it's
genuinely new_or fills an actual_gap, like_the_GNU tools_and_Linux), but there
are_times I wonder_whether there are a_lot of vested_interests_out there who
would like to drive the cost of software to zero and make_us_all work_for_a
wage_providing'services'.

There are entire categories of_software now where people are_now conditioned
only_to accept an open source product. Can you_imagine_anyone building a_new
computer language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely_successful it
would be cloned and forked_so quickly it'd_make_your_head spin.

Between the ideologues_like Stallman, who effectively think it's_immoral to
make money off selling the_software itself (I know his position is_supposedly
more nuanced than that, but free_software effectively amounts to this_if you
have_to hand out source to_all and sundry)_and the_open-source-friendly
companies like IBM_and Google - who have every_reason to drive_the $$$
available off software to zero,_it's_easy to feel_a_bit_beleaguered.

~~~
onan_barbarian
To clarify_my point, my_problem_is not_with_open source in general, it's with
'feature-by-feature_clones_of an innovative piece of software'.

The process_of building, say, VisiCalc_is_a lot riskier and_harder than
turning Excel into Libre_Office Calc. If Bricklin had known_he was_going to
have_to compete with free in a matter of a few months_after release, he might
have done something_else entirely.

This may be_hard to_understand_for people that_haven't_ever designed_anything
difficult, but frankly, it's _so_ much easier_to clone_something than build it
the first time._Even just knowing that_something_is possible is a huge leg_up.

If you think routinized F/OSS cloning_of software is an actual_service_to
innovation,_you need your head examined._If nothing else, it makes going_into
a patent frenzy_with every idea far more tempting.

It's hard_for_me to prove a counterfactual, of_course,_and show all the
wonderful things that_have_been_discouraged by the prospect of_immediate
shitty open source clones. I fully_accept that open source allows us to build
innovative things_on top of_other software layers - it's_not_necessarily_all