Comments on: The Slippery Slope of Foolish Good Intentions http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/ Jeff Nolan's take on investment, innovation, entrepreneurship and the technology industry Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:44:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charlie Crystle http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-17039 Charlie Crystle Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:34:59 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-17039 We donated $1 million of our software to nonprofits through a tech nonprofit. We put restrictions on who gets the donation, but not many. We sell to any nonprofit--not just the ones we like. A number of my employees don't agree with my politics, and I don't agree with theirs, but we don't allow that to get in the way of making great software that helps people. I just don't think it's good business practice to limit who you sell to. That said, we don't buy from WalMart as a rule. We buy locally as much as possible, because $.44 of every dollar spent at locally owned business stays local, but only 11 cents stays local when buying from chain stores. I'm glad to see Walmart changing some of its practices, but we still won't buy there. We vote with our dollars every step of the way. Come visit us at Craigslist Nonprofit Boot Camp on Saturday in Berkeley and learn more about sustainability and socially responsible practices that don't exclude your buyers. We donated $1 million of our software to nonprofits through a tech nonprofit. We put restrictions on who gets the donation, but not many. We sell to any nonprofit–not just the ones we like. A number of my employees don’t agree with my politics, and I don’t agree with theirs, but we don’t allow that to get in the way of making great software that helps people. I just don’t think it’s good business practice to limit who you sell to.

That said, we don’t buy from WalMart as a rule. We buy locally as much as possible, because $.44 of every dollar spent at locally owned business stays local, but only 11 cents stays local when buying from chain stores. I’m glad to see Walmart changing some of its practices, but we still won’t buy there. We vote with our dollars every step of the way.

Come visit us at Craigslist Nonprofit Boot Camp on Saturday in Berkeley and learn more about sustainability and socially responsible practices that don’t exclude your buyers.

]]> By: Thomas Otter http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16793 Thomas Otter Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:42:50 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16793 Jeff, Agree this is a dumb gesture, it also creates a nice moral conundrum. The internet is a direct result of US military research spend, without DARPA etc it is very unlikely that the internet would exist as it does today. http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/57.htm The Internet as we know it ... traces it origins back to a Defense Department project in 1969. The subject of the project was wartime digital communications. At that time the telephone system was about the only theater-scale communications system in use. A major problem had been identified in its design - its dependence on switching stations that could be targeted during an attack.... . The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the DARPA Internet Program. If one is to get all moralistic about technology, then the internet itself is tainted goods. For the GPU then, connect the machines together, just dont use TCP-IP, cos thats one of Darpa's too. DARPA etc will play a major role in shaping the future of the Internet too. http://www.isi.edu/newarch/ Jeff,
Agree this is a dumb gesture, it also creates a nice moral conundrum.

The internet is a direct result of US military research spend, without DARPA etc it is very unlikely that the internet would exist as it does today.

http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/57.htm
The Internet as we know it … traces it origins back to a Defense Department project in 1969. The subject of the project was wartime digital communications. At that time the telephone system was about the only theater-scale communications system in use. A major problem had been identified in its design – its dependence on switching stations that could be targeted during an attack…. . The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the DARPA Internet Program.

If one is to get all moralistic about technology, then the internet itself is tainted goods. For the GPU then, connect the machines together, just dont use TCP-IP, cos thats one of Darpa’s too.

DARPA etc will play a major role in shaping the future of the Internet too.
http://www.isi.edu/newarch/

]]> By: Dwight Shih http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16773 Dwight Shih Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:23:36 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16773 They based the restriction upon Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics. But they forgot that most of Asimov's robot stories hinge upon subleties in how the laws apply to borderline situations. Suppose you were using the software for pharmaceutical research. And then you mess up your drug trial and nearly kill 6 men (leaving all 6 with serious medical issues) as recently happened in Great Britain. Did you violate the license? If so, then when? They based the restriction upon Isaac Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics. But they forgot that most of Asimov’s robot stories hinge upon subleties in how the laws apply to borderline situations.

Suppose you were using the software for pharmaceutical research. And then you mess up your drug trial and nearly kill 6 men (leaving all 6 with serious medical issues) as recently happened in Great Britain. Did you violate the license? If so, then when?

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16531 Jeff Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:52:34 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16531 Agree, just don't do it under the banner of "open source" would be the only thing I would add. Agree, just don’t do it under the banner of “open source” would be the only thing I would add.

]]> By: Rogel http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16529 Rogel Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:28 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16529 I also finding preventing the military use to be a bad choice but my idea of freedom is to the kind that protect IP. One ability to restrict the use of his creation is the best expression of freedom. I also finding preventing the military use to be a bad choice but my idea of freedom is to the kind that protect IP. One ability to restrict the use of his creation is the best expression of freedom.

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16526 Jeff Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:33:49 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16526 because the whole point of open source was to eliminate the restrictions that publishers were imposing. He can specify anything he wants in the license, but there's a point at which it violates the principles of open source, and this is a case of just that. Open source is about much more than just being free, it's also about freedom. I also find the specifics of this case to be offensive... the same license restriction that prevents the military from using the software will prevent them from using it for peacekeeping operations, providing humanitarian aid, scientific research, and all the other non-lethal activities that modern militaries conduct. The open source community makes a lot of noise about being self-rationalizing and self-policing, this is an opportunity for the community to live up to that posturing and tell Mengotti that this is overstepping and the community won't support them. because the whole point of open source was to eliminate the restrictions that publishers were imposing. He can specify anything he wants in the license, but there’s a point at which it violates the principles of open source, and this is a case of just that. Open source is about much more than just being free, it’s also about freedom.

I also find the specifics of this case to be offensive… the same license restriction that prevents the military from using the software will prevent them from using it for peacekeeping operations, providing humanitarian aid, scientific research, and all the other non-lethal activities that modern militaries conduct.

The open source community makes a lot of noise about being self-rationalizing and self-policing, this is an opportunity for the community to live up to that posturing and tell Mengotti that this is overstepping and the community won’t support them.

]]> By: Rogel http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-16524 Rogel Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:26:51 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/08/15/the-slippery-slope-of-foolish-good-intentions/#comment-16524 Jeff, why wouldn't one limit the use of software he writes? why couldn't one decide that he doesn't want his creation to be used in certain ways? It seems to me a great implementation of IP with open source. Jeff,
why wouldn’t one limit the use of software he writes? why couldn’t one decide that he doesn’t want his creation to be used in certain ways?
It seems to me a great implementation of IP with open source.

]]>