 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Thurssday, August 29, 2002
I've been watching this Lessig et al. vs. Winer et al. for the last week and a bit & would like to weigh in now that I've had sober time to think everyone's arguements through. Now that we're getting into methaphors it says to me that the main issues have largely been worked through. 8^) 1) Lessig is brilliant at pointing out the issues and painting the history to put the issues in context. Nevertheless, he is a lawyer, and when posing a solution cannot seem to help being what and who he is and sees more law as a solution. Is it? I dunno, but it makes me squirm. I'd be happy if these people just got out of our way. I think people often see him as a good explainer and extrapolate that he is a good problem solver. And hence people are willing to accept anything he says as gospel. This is a common human falicy. His may be good legal solutions *if* that is the kind of solutions you want. 2) Mr. Winer, as an open source advocate I see open source as a practical methodolgy to build better software. I also like the sense of community where everyone is supposedly an equal participant. Is it always better? No. I'd bet on open source producing better software more often than not. In the case of Radio, maybe not. Who knows? But, I'd never insist that you should open your code. That's your domain to choose. As for your brain, I think you're onto something there for sure, but miss a large point. I like to know that the code for the software I use is understood by others out there if not me. 3) The extremist: I like extremists for no other fact that they make us think in larger terms. Are they useful in a practical way. Nah, but they sure are fun! *Please note that in both of the above issues I am firmly against forcing someone to act as I'd like. There are responses to this message:
|
