My comment was that if you want them to stop, we've got to provide a compelling reason for them to stop beyond just avoiding being sued.
Like it or not, many businesses operate under the presumption that anything not explicitly illegal is permissible. This includes the supporting viewpoint that, until they're caught, it ain't illegal. (See also: Enron, Tyco, and nearly the whole banking industry.)
I'm not saying these people aren't unethical scumbags. I'm just saying they exist and operate under a different paradigm than more principled folks. ;-)
So, just like your previous blog post about the economic disincentives around open sourcing products, we need to get better about clearly articulating how OSS saves them money and even makes them more money than continuing to operate in a closed environment.
no subject
My comment was that if you want them to stop, we've got to provide a compelling reason for them to stop beyond just avoiding being sued.
Like it or not, many businesses operate under the presumption that anything not explicitly illegal is permissible. This includes the supporting viewpoint that, until they're caught, it ain't illegal. (See also: Enron, Tyco, and nearly the whole banking industry.)
I'm not saying these people aren't unethical scumbags. I'm just saying they exist and operate under a different paradigm than more principled folks. ;-)
So, just like your previous blog post about the economic disincentives around open sourcing products, we need to get better about clearly articulating how OSS saves them money and even makes them more money than continuing to operate in a closed environment.