Re: and visual library once again

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>What definition of "organization" are you using if you can say that Red
>>Hat is a large organization but Microsoft isn't?
> 
>   Nobody said either of those things.

I'll explain my reasoning. You wrote the following:

>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.

You divided producers of software into two categories: category A, "the 
market", and category B, "government or other organizations not guided 
by the market". You also spoke of programs that are "public goods". As 
you wrote that in response to Steve's words about GPL'd programs, you 
obviously meant "public goods" to mean free software. You claimed that 
category A will not supply free software, that only category B will pay 
programmers to produce free software.

Red Hat is a company that pays programmers to produce free software, so 
by that criterion it fits in category B. It can clearly not be in 
category A, because supplying free software is the heart of its 
business. As Red Hat isn't a government agency I have to conclude that 
it's an "other organization not guided by the market".

As an example from category A, someone who produces software but not 
free software, I chose Microsoft.

So, surprised that Red Hat isn't part of the market and knowing that 
there are several differences between Red Hat and Microsoft, I ask: 
Which difference causes Red Hat to be classified as an "organization not 
guided by the market" and Microsoft as part of "the market", and what 
definitions of "organization" and "market" make that possible?

Or would you place Microsoft in category B also, and if so, will you 
please mention an example from category A?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu