20 Dec
2005
20 Dec
'05
10:49 a.m.
Just because he has a right to do something does not
mean it is a good
thing for him to do. (My usual example is farting in a crowded
elevator.) Yet I've now seen two people writing as though "it's his
right to do this" implies some kind of "he should be not be criticized
for doing this". I don't get it. Do you really think it does?
Against my own better judgement, I have decided to reply to this. I
believe your analogy is flawed, and hence by extension, your criticism.
If I fart in an elevator, I am polluting a scarce public resource. Clearly
that deserves criticism. Similarly, my right to swing my arms ends at
your nose (if not at your "personal space").
However, Dave wasn't doing anything like that. First, he isn't obligated
to do anything at all for us. And if he chooses to do nothing for us,
it would be bizzare for us to think less of him for just minding his own
business.
So, he went out of his way for us, created a useful tool, and a useful
dialog about the features of such tools. I think nearly everyone thought
better of him for going out of his way for the community.
Thinking less of him because he doesn't want to volunteer even more
time and energy is just mistaken, in my view.
It is true that not releasing source code limits the long term value of
his contribution. (As he said, the current version wasn't meant to be
a long term contribution. That was for some future version.) Still,
a contribution is a wonderful thing.
I don't get the argument that, by not releasing source, he has harmed
us in any way (since the reference point is him doing nothing for us
for free, not him doing everything).
Vince