I'm sorry for being way more combative than I needed to be. Looking back through the
exchange, you're right. My last message was meant to be conciliatory, but I just didn't write
enough or in the right way.
I still believe my question about "we" is valid, because it gets to the heart of one of my pet
peeves. The benefits of a good infusion of previously proprietary code from a corporate donor
is a matching infusion of developers who used to be proprietary developers. Saying that "we"
don't need these infusions is saying that "we" don't need the developers to be part of the
"we". Now, I realize that nobody here would actually mean to say that, but that's why I think
being sloppy about the use of "we" is dangerous.
So, that's why I'm asking about "we". I figured rather than assume the worst (as the above
paragraph does), I'd ask point blank what is meant by "we".
I have questions about other phrases, such as what is meant by "free software can't actually
invent anything" (as a stereotype to be feared). Well, as written, that's mostly true. I
think true invention is actually beyond even Eliza, though it wouldn't surprise me if Emacs
has a M-x invent-anything command.
I understand the gist of what is actually meant by that phrase (though a clarification would
help), but I don't understand why it's so worrisome. The bulk of desktop software is
proprietary now; it's better if the existing software is made open rather than rewriting it
from scratch. Anyone so worried about that stereotype shouldn't be out creating yet another
virtual world platform or online gaming system, they should be creating a whole new category