On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Jack Marxer <[email protected]> wrote:
As I understand what Red Hat is doing, they are not witholding bug fixes. Instead they are simply packaging multiple bug fixes together and offering that update to their customers (for money) and to anyone else who can get it from a customer (for free or otherwise). The difference in their current behavior, again as I understand it, is that they don't delineate to persons or companies who are not their clients exactly what bug fixes are included in the update. This makes it more difficult for Oracle to make money from Red Hat's efforts to improve the GPL-licensed software and is in complete accord with the GPL license terms. Oracle seems to be the party at fault here by trying to make money from the efforts of the community and Red Hat without contributing back.
Oracle's recent actions with regard to OpenOffice seem to demonstrate that they are not interested in collaborating with free software communities.
What do you think?
I think that even though these companies maintain their respective attitudes/cultures with regards to F/LOSS communities, that they are going against the grain of the "game" they are in. In complex systems science terms: There is only one known winning scenario to the "tragedy of the commons", and it is when agents in the system "recognize" the "game" they are playing. If agents can understand that survival, or "winning" means cooperative governance of a finite resource, they operate in a way that does not over-use the resource, and all of their participation may be dynamically sustained over time. If they compete to over-use the system, eventually most or even up to all will die. The problem with the game as it is being played now by Redhat and Oracle is that it is a "tit for tat" game in the "commons". One move to hoard resources and keep them from competitors will likely spark a series of counter moves by competitors to hoard what has not yet been hoarded (if not right away, then eventually). The "players" come to believe they are in a "tit for tat" game. This is not just Red Hat's fault here. Oracle made the first moves, at least in the eyes of Red Hat, and Red Hat says as much in their press release (without naming names). The irony is that *even* in a "tit for tat" game, cooperation is the winning strategy.
Jack Marxer
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- -- Sam Rose Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 skype: samuelrose email: [email protected] http://forwardfound.org http://futureforwardinstitute.org http://hollymeadcapital.com http://p2pfoundation.net http://socialmediaclassroom.com "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan