As someone who mostly works in Microsoft shops, I was disinclined to open source.
I must admit, as time has gone on my opinion on the sanctity of Intellectual Property has changed.
I am not sure that I am willing to state than anyone who charges for their code, their music or any product of their labors is a scoundrel. This seems to me to be a bit ass backwards. Prices tend to be a mechanism of establishing a reciprocal relationship. (I will give you this code if you give me back something of value in return) I find repellent the idea that I should have the right to demand from someone something for free. I do not go to the farmer's house and demand that he feed me.
At the same time, the farmer does not sue me for giving a piece of fruit to my son, or if I sell it to my neighbor for a bit more than the price I paid for it. The farmer claims no right to a piece of fruit once I have given him something of value in exchange for it.
The questions seems to be more, how do we approach the commodification of software, music and other intellectual pursuits, so that they the trade more easily in the marketplace, like fruits and vegetables. Needless to say, the attempt to place natural phenomena like genes and seeds under the umbrella of Intellectual Property tends to be huge a step in the wrong direction.
The problem is that the mechanism for enforcing IP rights is backwards. Once one sells their product, the idea the creator of the product has rights to the disposition of the property is completely ludicrous. It may mean, practically, that most software is free, except for bespoke software, as simple market forces will lower the price of most things to zero or as near zero as possible and the difference between Intellectual Property and produce is the former is much easier to copy than the other. Hence, while the labor of the farmer is embedded in each piece of fruit, the creative or "intellectual labor" is not so easily embedded. The model seems to be the Grateful Dead, who still profited from their labors, but made the product of their labors freely transferable to all. That, I believe, is the model software needs to go toward. But how to get there, and whether being part of a successful open source project is the best way, is, I believe, best discovered through the development of the software marketplace overtime.
You have basically said, that you believe your experts over other experts, based upon the fact that, well, you like your experts.
And what has been going on?
Changeable weather. Perhaps you should read more. There has been inexplicable weather since the dawn of mankind.
Experts once believed in racial theories, the benign nature of x-ray exposure, cranial measurements as proof of criminal tendencies.
If an expert can be wrong, then the problem comes down to discernment. If experts disagree, how do you choose which expert to follow?
If experts choose a course of action that is destructive to you, are you obligated to follow it? Are others obligated to impose it upon you? Are you obligated to impose it on others?
Does the fact that you renounce your freedom mean that I should also be enslaved?
The fact is that cable companies enjoy monopoly privileges in any municipality they are located in.
That is stringent.
I am saying that any one should be allowed to run a line, dig under the ground -- with property owner's consent (not the city, since oddly enough, if you need to replace your sidewalk, it is the homeowners affair. Hence, he owns the walk.) Then anyone should have the privilege of doing so.
Since almost everyone would gain -- indeed, the digger could pay a fee to each homeowner for the right and the inconvenience, fostering competition, but also allowing the owner to capture some profits.
The fact is regulation -- whether net neutrality or cable regulation generally is constructed to favor those in power.
It is, after all, why you wish governments to mandate open source. You stand to profit, as an open source strategy consultant.
You should be allowed your self interest, but the moment you wish the government to mandate toward your advantage, then the spirit of democracy and equality before the law is completely usurped.
Regulations are never constructed to aid the powerless -- since those governing have nothing to gain and little to fear from the powerless.
It is all about self-interest. If you are not an atheistic mendicant, then you merely prove my point.
No sorry, it is fascism. It is the usurpation of private property rights by the government without edict. Happened in Germany, Italy, Spain and France.
What you are saying is I, the private individual have a right to speak, but if the Arbiter (the government) decides what I say is "Unfair" then I (the individual) must give over my property or its use to a third party (or the government itself) to correct an imbalance.
Speech isn't governance.
The purpose of speech is to hold in check governance. If the government can claim that any independent operator must provide a government favorable viewpoint, then you have destroyed free speech. It now becomes government talk.
It is very interesting to hear people who suppose they have a radical viewpoint, staunchly support what can only be termed Fascist economics and a sort of 1984 doublespeak. Although, fascism is a very radical ideology. So I guess no conflict there.
And you are quite right, allowing individuals their freedoms is not a good way to govern. It is merely a preferable way -- for those who are governed -- to live.