Comments on: Ben Rockwood on OSS and The Contribution Society http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/07/03/ben-rockwood-on-oss-and-the-contribution-society/ An industry analyst blog looking at software ecosystems and convergence Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:35:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nige http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/07/03/ben-rockwood-on-oss-and-the-contribution-society/comment-page-1/#comment-1657 Nige Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:37:43 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=650#comment-1657 James, you are misunderstanding economics and the concept of self-interest. Economics is simply a way of explaining how scarce resources are allocated, and why people behave in a certain way given many and varied stimuli. As I understand it, many economists have explained why open source works in certain situations. One can look at a free market (capitalist) model for how this is done, or, at the other extreme, a North Korean style communist model, and of course, everything in between. The concept of self-interest cannot be understood by looking at how much money someone expects to make/save through a certain action. It is of course much broader than that. People act in a way that satisfies their own needs: their need to make/save money, their need to contribute to society, to volunteer, to watch football, etc. Your friend Ben provides a perfect example of someone acting in his own self-interest (the desire for a sense of happiness by doing others a good turn). And of course, in so doing, he IS helping others (one assumes). But in this regard, he really is no different to Adam Smith's butcher and baker (I forget the other chap...might have been a brewer) who act in their own self interest by providing goods that others will pay for. Whether money changes hands or not is immaterial to the concept of self-interest. James, you are misunderstanding economics and the concept of self-interest. Economics is simply a way of explaining how scarce resources are allocated, and why people behave in a certain way given many and varied stimuli. As I understand it, many economists have explained why open source works in certain situations. One can look at a free market (capitalist) model for how this is done, or, at the other extreme, a North Korean style communist model, and of course, everything in between.

The concept of self-interest cannot be understood by looking at how much money someone expects to make/save through a certain action. It is of course much broader than that. People act in a way that satisfies their own needs: their need to make/save money, their need to contribute to society, to volunteer, to watch football, etc. Your friend Ben provides a perfect example of someone acting in his own self-interest (the desire for a sense of happiness by doing others a good turn). And of course, in so doing, he IS helping others (one assumes). But in this regard, he really is no different to Adam Smith’s butcher and baker (I forget the other chap…might have been a brewer) who act in their own self interest by providing goods that others will pay for. Whether money changes hands or not is immaterial to the concept of self-interest.

]]> By: Simon Phipps http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/07/03/ben-rockwood-on-oss-and-the-contribution-society/comment-page-1/#comment-1656 Simon Phipps Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:33:46 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=650#comment-1656 You and Ben are discussiong points that are so far disconnected from the point of my keynote it's almost impossible to start from what either of you are saying and correct it. The ZDNet article was complete junk, not unusual for them, intended just to cause outrage and page hits. You're both getting outraged at a journalistic abuse of a rhetorical comment you would have applauded in context. Suffice to say that I did not "call for" anything in my talk, and the phrase "connected capitalism" was used - at the end of a slide all about how open source works by everyone contributing what they want without compulsion and using what they need without restriction - as a counterpoint to people who try to call open source "communism". Think Benkler. Check out Dana Blankenhorn's comments[1] (complete with my observations). It's high time we shunned the UK tech press. [1] <a href="http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/how_misundersto.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/how_misundersto.html</a> You and Ben are discussiong points that are so far disconnected from the point of my keynote it’s almost impossible to start from what either of you are saying and correct it. The ZDNet article was complete junk, not unusual for them, intended just to cause outrage and page hits. You’re both getting outraged at a journalistic abuse of a rhetorical comment you would have applauded in context.

Suffice to say that I did not “call for” anything in my talk, and the phrase “connected capitalism” was used – at the end of a slide all about how open source works by everyone contributing what they want without compulsion and using what they need without restriction – as a counterpoint to people who try to call open source “communism”. Think Benkler.

Check out Dana Blankenhorn’s comments[1] (complete with my observations). It’s high time we shunned the UK tech press.

[1] http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/how_misundersto.html

]]>