<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.30.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
If the profits are excess, why would anyone want to invest in a business. People (and banks) don't lend money from the goodness of their hearts. They expect a return on investment.<BR>
<BR>
No return, no investment. <BR>
<BR>
Anyone can classify capitalism as evil, but they damned sure want to take advantage of it if it's not outlawed.<BR>
<BR>
Dan<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 20:18 -0500, Jim Kinney wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
I think you totally missed the point. Cannonical performed a very
underhanded deed that violates the community trust. Justifying their
action because they're a business allows other unscrupulous actions
for the sake of profit. I'm sure people would be gathering their
pitchforks if they were told that the tire dealer was donating 10% of
all March sales to a scholarship fund only later it's discovered they
pocketed the money for their own uses.
Business ethics is, proven once again, an oxymoron.
Most people in business pay themselves from their revenues, not from
the profits. Profit is what's left after all the expenses are paid.
I argue profit is waste in the economic model. Once a fair trade has
been consummated, the profit is the waste that could have been cut
from the resources exchanged and the trade could have still been made.
Profit pretty much guarantees that the exchange was not equal.
Most people work for a living. That living does not include a profit
margin. Most profits are not worked for by those that receive it. Most
profit receivers spend the bulk of their time perpetuating the big
scam that lets them collect the profits from the efforts of others.
As a former (2 time) business owner, I found that current business
models are so skewed towards "profits above all else" that the civic
responsibility didn't even get a heartbeat of attention in most cases.
It's not just about profits. It's really all about the people and the
process and the relationships between all of the people both in the
business and in the community.
bah. this was probably a total waste of time. speaking philosophy to
ale never goes well.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Dan Lambert <<A HREF="mailto:danlambert@bellsouth.net">danlambert@bellsouth.net</A>> wrote:
> I am amazed at this group sometimes.
>
> Virtually every commercial entity that is mentioned on here is vilified and
> criticized to the extreme. If any of them don't meet the expectations of
> this group in every regard, they are instantly put on par with the most
> despised corporations on the planet.
>
> I understand and appreciate the superior efforts of FOSS devotees, and am
> particularly impressed by the Debian team of developers, and their
> contributions to the open source community.
>
> I want to remind everyone of the fact that BUSINESSES are in BUSINESS to
> make a PROFIT. They are not charities, and some (most) of them use any
> opportunity possible to extract a small percentage of profit from every
> aspect they can.
>
> If any of you are in the management of, or own a corporation, you are fully
> aware of the need to make a profit, or you go out of business.
>
> If any of you want to blast me for my position, go ahead. I work for one of
> those evil FOR PROFIT businesses. It's kept my family fed, and put my
> children through school. I used to own my own business, and I can tell you
> for a fact that working in the corporate world is a hell of a lot easier,
> because I don't have to worry about how to meet payroll, or how to eke
> enough profit out to pay my own bills.
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:59 -0500, Tim Watts wrote:
>
> You go to a small public beech one sunny day with your beech chair under
> arm looking for a nice spot. You find it, open your chair there and head
> back to your car for the rest of your stuff. Upon return, you find one
> Mr. Shuttleworth & Co. has replaced your chair with his and moved yours
> 3 feet from the tide...
>
> Not to worry, I'm sure Canonical will put the money to good use funding
> Unity.</half-snark>
>
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:28 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Jim Kinney wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael B. Trausch <<A HREF="mailto:mike@trausch.us">mike@trausch.us</A>>
>> > wrote:
>> > > What Canonical is doing is ethically wrong and is the level of crap
>> > > I'd
>> > > expect to see from a politician, not someone who claims to care about
>> > > the free software ecosystem(s).
>> >
>> > I think you hit the nail on the head. Cannonical is NOT about the free
>> > software ecosystem. Cannonical is as much of a corporate leech as
>> > Oracle.
>> >
>> > They have always been that way.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm just young, dumb, and naïve; I've seen them as pretty stupid
>> sometimes, I've certainly noted their lack of (direct) upstream
>> contributions (though they do seem to go out of their way to "launder"
>> them through Debian at times), but up until now I've never seen them as
>> a truly harmful entity.
>>
>> Now I'm convinced that they need to be ejected from our universe, though
>> I suppose that's as useless a statement as any. It's not like I have
>> the power to effect that change. That's probably a good thing.
>>
>> > SuSE used to distribute their distro with a closed-source installer.
>> > Thus I quit even tinkering with their stuff. They saw the light,
>> > opened the code and make themselves some serious geek cred hacking
>> > video drivers for X. That was an (almost) excusable infraction.
>> >
>> > But to change the affiliate code on software you get to use for free
>> > so the developers get cut out of a few nickles to feed their
>> > caffeine/music habits shows a serious (in my mind) lack of ethics.
>>
>> If only it was to feed their caffeine and music habits. They were
>> donating it all to GNOME. Nevermind that: it's just as wrong either
>> way.
>>
>> I've never really thought that there would ever be a time where I would
>> think of a license revocation clause as a good thing, but I'm starting
>> to think that it would be. I know that if I were the people behind
>> Banshee, I'd be absolutely livid. Hell, I'm livid as it is.
>>
>> Of course, they have no grounds to sue, they have no method by which to
>> revoke the license to Canonical, and they have no means by which to get
>> their (well-deserved!) money without convincing everyone to install
>> their own packaged version. Leaves a nasty, nasty taste in my mouth.
>> Just like politicians do. Nasty.
>>
>> Ubuntu 11.04: The Nasty Nabber.
>>
>> --- Mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> <A HREF="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</A>
>> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</A>
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</A>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> <A HREF="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</A>
> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</A>
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</A>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> <A HREF="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</A>
> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</A>
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> <A HREF="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</A>
>
>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>