This shows why people like you never get anywhere and start up hater blog posts about people who are far more successful than you’ll ever be.

He worked for Xerox to learn how to sell, just as his Rich Dad advised him. Maybe if you had the balls to ask him for an interview, stop by the Rich Dad offices, or even read his books, you would’ve already saved yourself from this false and embarassing assumption.

And he never worked for Amway you idiot.

Would love to compare your financial statement to his. He makes more money from his real estate and oil & gas partnerships than he does from the Rich Dad company.

Gets your facts straight before making an ass out of yourself.

Free software makes social sense

Published: November 10 2004 12:18 | Last updated: November 10 2004 12:18

From Mr Karl Fogel.

Sir, Richard Epstein (“Why open source is unsustainable”, October 21) writes as someone who has noticed the open source movement but not yet really understood it. He claims that “open source software relies on the very private property regime” that its supporters disdain, and that a popular open source licence supplies “an all-enveloping ownership structure in which a central committee decides whether to incorporate changes into the basic public program.”

Leaving aside the loaded language (presumably meant to make readers think of Communist central committees), his claim is simply false. A basic tenet of all open source licences is that there is no centralised control over distribution: no central committee, no ownership in any meaningful sense of the word, no restrictions on sharing. Anyone, including Professor Epstein, is free to take any open source program and start distributing it with whatever improvements he chooses. He is free to become his own “central committee”, and others are free to choose his distribution over someone else’s. This arrangement completely avoids the usual monopolistic structure of intellectual property, an important point that Prof Epstein seems not to notice.

Prof Epstein cautions governments against preferring open source software, yet neglects to address one of the principal reasons why they should prefer it. Much has been made (by Microsoft especially) of the concept of Total Cost of Ownership: the idea that, even if the software is free, there are hidden costs in training, maintenance and interoperability, and that these costs are lower with traditional proprietary software than with free software. But the question governments and businesses are increasingly asking themselves is not about Total Cost of Ownership, but about the Cost of Total Ownership: how much is it costing them to be totally owned by their software vendors? The problem is not just that they are asked to pay an upgrade tax to Bill Gates every few years; it’s also that they are locked into vendor-controlled data formats, so that users are forced to purchase particular pieces of software simply to communicate with each other. For governments, who must treat all their citizens equally, free software makes social sense: it allows everyone to use computer networks without giving one company or another undue influence over the very infrastructure of civic life.

Prof Epstein is right that open source “should succeed or fail on its own merits”, and it will. But he must recognise those merits before he can analyse the movement and its future.

Karl Fogel,

Author, “Open Source Development with CVS” (Coriolis Press, 1999; Paraglyph Press 2003); “Producing Free Software: How to Manage Open Source Projects” (O’Reilly Media, forthcoming in 2005)

Chicago, IL 60637,

USA

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c518ad6-3311-11d9-b6c3-00000e2511c8.html?nclick_check=1

-Karl