Scripting News' Dave Winer says Neither Microsoft or Google, or Pyra or UserLand are open source companies. You'll find that the excitement in software is often this way. The open source implementations can come later, but people at the leading edge generally need to keep the source to themselves. No matter, if everything is working correctly, users still get choice, and have the ultimate power over what's created.
Say what? Dave Winer is saying that innovation requires closed source? Or is he saying only closed source can produce exciting software? (Does RMS and the FSF have any thoughts on this claim? How about the claim that "user's still get choice and have ultimate power"?
Are Advogadorians going to sit back and let that go by without challenge? Are we all simply working on open source implementations that copy the innovative commercial software what's gone before? (I know I'm not, but what about the rest of you?)
Argument by anecdote is bad enough, but to make an assertion like this one, based on just 4 exceptional examples out of a whole world of possibilities... and yet Winer gets the Harvard post? The world is a funny place.