[P2P-F] red hat's restriction's

Wed Mar 9 16:02:51 CET 2011

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Jack Marxer <jmarxer at gmail.com> 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: samuel.rose at gmail.com
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