| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LinuxCon: Keeping open source openLinuxCon: Keeping open source openPosted Sep 24, 2009 16:54 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open by felixfix Parent article: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open I seem to remember that about a decade ago the Hungarian Parliament discussed an act about telecommunication (I believe it was the LXV. act from 1997). Totally different parties happened to submit the same text, which also seemed to come from various telecommunication companies. This act seems to fit the laws passed in keen pursuit of "highest bidder". By the way, this act is mostly about the interworking of the communication (e.g. mobile telephone) networks. On the other hand the XXV. act from 1920 was clearly made for the "social good". It essentially created an upper limit for the number or Jewish students at various universities. I'm a lot more suspicious of people who're "working for the social good" than those those who're simply selfish.
(Log in to post comments)
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 24, 2009 17:19 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
It is easy and lazy to cherry pick single examples, or to assume "social good" and "highest bidder" are mutually exclusive.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 25, 2009 0:03 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I believe government officials usually pass laws for social good, following their honest opinion of what is best for society. Narrow minded people who have a different opinion like to ascribe the difference to evilness on the other guy's part. I also believe that what the highest bidder wants is usually for the social good. That's because the highest bidder got the money for the bid from society, which gave it to the bidder voluntarily in exchange for what the bidder gives them. Lobbyists do write legislation, which is then signed by legislators, and there's nothing suspicious about that. It doesn't imply the legislator sponsored the legislation for any reason other than that he personally believes every word of it is best for society. It does mean that the cost of creating legislation is being borne by the segments of society that benefit from it the most.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 25, 2009 6:29 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ah, the innocence. It's so sweet.
(Hint: sometimes -- often -- lobbyists like to write laws so that they can
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 25, 2009 8:33 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] sometimes -- often -- lobbyists like to write laws so that they can get special advantages or privileges from those laws. You have to go further than that, because a lobbyist can only draft the law. For it to take effect, he has not only to get someone else to sponsor it, but often hundreds of other people to vote for it. So you have to be way more cynical and propose that all the legislators somehow get special benefits -- bribes, I guess -- at the expense of society. And assuming you don't believe you and your friends are so immoral, you have to believe that legislators are cut from a different cloth from the rest of us, and if legislators are elected, that requires even more cynicism because it means the evil bastards somehow fool millions of people, generation after generation, into not recognizing them for the thieves that they are.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 25, 2009 13:41 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Your sarcasm is a welcome relief. I am glad someone here injected some levity into this way off-topic thread.
|
|
||||||||||||