Taking a Principled Position on Software Freedom

I find this an interesting take on the subject. I'd use the same line of thought to argue for the opposite position: it's a good thing if a statement could be proven to be wrong! Arguments that rely on a set of empirical claims of superiority are good arguments, because they can be tested. Statements that are not refutable -- such as statements about the superiority of a subjective moral -- are bad arguments.<p>For the record: Here's one Open Source advocate who applauds LinuxCare for saving themselves by abandoning Open Source. I guess, the current users of LinuxCare's products probably agree. Yes, I advocate for "proprietary development methodologies in areas where evidence seems to show that they are more effective".<p>An idea is not inevitably good just because it's guided by principle.<p>In fact, I believe most ideas that are guided by principles -- especially those that claim moral superiority of a certain principle -- seem to turned always into human tragedies.

Summary: there are two camps of open source advocacy: those who state their position on matters of principle, and those who make their case based on promoting measurable quantities such as higher quality or more flexible software etc. Author believes the former is better because "<i>Principles are based on a type of Utopianism; they are a statement of how we think things should be"</i> whereas the latter argument is open to obvious, demonstrable cases where it is false.<p>While I have every sympathy for his intellectual position, as somebody who has had to make a business case for using open source software, I have found the vocal "efficiency" camp and its publicity invaluable when dealing with an audience that is sceptical towards matters of principles.... on principle. Yes, the superiority argument isn't always technically correct, but is certainly more appealing to certain classes of people.