Re: [projectvrm] Attracting VRM/Me2B investments, VRM/Me2B Day

[Don Marti < >]

(answer inline)

begin Guy Jarvis quotation of Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:38:18AM +0100:
> 
> Don,
> 
> Speaking to your opening sentence below, if big tech is open source based
> then can GPL be used to pry open their AI black boxes I wonder?

No, the GPL's reciprocity requirement only applies
to software you _distribute_, not to software you
run in the data center.

There is a GPL variant, the AGPL, that requires
reciprocity for network services -- but it's not
likely to make it into a big tech company.

  https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/

  https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/

IMHO only somebody who understands the role of the
original GPL in displacing the last generation of IT
firms would be able to write that about the AGPL.

> GuyJ
> 
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, 20:14 Don Marti, 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> > One of the problems is that Big Tech as we know it is an outgrowth of
> > the open source software business.
> >
> > In software, the absolute worst place for a dollar to end up is at
> > another software company. You would rather burn the money than see
> > another software company get it, because they would use it to sue you,
> > or build network effects to squeeze you out, or whatever.
> >
> > So open source is a great defensive strategy in software. Turn the
> > categories _adjacent_ to yours into low-profit commodities.
> >
> > Keep growing the open source model and you get today's Big Tech.
> >
> >    https://blog.zgp.org/device-drivers-privacy-publishing/
> >
> > Everything adjacent to their business has to be a commodity. YouTubers,
> > Amazon sellers/drivers, and of course content sites. Surveillance
> > marketing, for most, is a means to an end -- make the content brand into
> > a commodity source of the same eyeballs you get get anywhere, drive the
> > ad profits to the platform.
> >
> > The problem with this is that it works great for software, where it's
> > safe to assume that the company next to you is run by a litigious
> > [redacted], but it's suboptimal for types of business in which a strong
> > company adjacent to you is an advantage. (If Google management ran
> > Chevron, they would give out free clones of the 1970 Plymouth Belvedere
> > that get 8 MPG, and everyone would be all on about how there is no money
> > in the car business.)
> >
> > Ad agencies+brands+content outlets can be an example of positive
> > feedback from strong companies next to each other, but if you're only
> > playing one-D chess and commoditizing everything, you miss it.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > On 9/16/19 11:42 AM, JClark wrote:
> > > Having a healthy, trusting society would be good for business, no?
> > >
> > > Surveillance in support of manipulation and oppression is not healthy or
> > > good for business, and yet that is the group-think-supported mirage that
> > > businesses (and many forms of governance) are acting on. It's a
> > > hoarder's dilemma.
> > >
> > > j.
> > >
> > > On 9/16/19 11:18 AM, Doc Searls wrote:
> > >> We know all those things. What we need to make are better cases that
> > >> increased personal agency will be good for business.
> > >>
> > >> For example, if picos provide a standardized way for customers and
> > >> companies to learn from each other, that's good for business.
> > >> Likewise, intentcasting is a better way for a customer to become a
> > >> qualified lead than for a company to track the person like an animal.
> > >> Standardized agreements that are good for both sides (such
> > >> as #NoStalking <http://customercommons.org/home/tools/terms/p2b1/>)
> > >> can reduce many frictions, including GDPR compliance needs. The list
> > >> goes on.
> > >>
> > >> Doc
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Adrian Gropper 
> > >>> <
 
> > >>> <mailto:
 >>
> > >>>  wrote:
> > >>>d
> > >>> To Doc's second point on what will be good for business, I see these
> > >>> perceived costs to business:
> > >>> - Businesses prefer to be in control (reduced uncertainty)
> > >>> - It’s expensive to give control to the customer (legal costs,
> > >>> customization costs)
> > >>> - Who else gets to format the questions? (reduced control)
> > >>> - Ad-blockers and cookie managers reduce profit (complicated, but
> > >>> there's little evidence of innovation)
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we want to address these directly or do we need to change the
> > >>> question?
> > >>>
> > >>> Adrian
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> ...
> >

-- 
Don Marti 
<
 >
                   
https://blog.aloodo.org/
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  https://www.aloodo.org/test/