Greenberg spent many years developing the technology while working at the Alfred Mann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that develops biomedical devices
EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …
They exist to make money not help humanity.
I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.
Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.
Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
I’m going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).
Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don’t realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.
You’re giving a roundabout justification for regulation.
It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).
Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it’s so backwards.
They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother
From the article…
EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …
I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.
Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.
EDIT2: I’m all for open source.
“he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”
The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.
Kind of hard to operate a company without also making money doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive to each other.
Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
Feel free to enlighten them on how to run a beneficial company with no income.
Government grants… A là Lockmart.
I’m going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).
deleted by creator
He should have made it open sauce
Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don’t realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.
You’re giving a roundabout justification for regulation.
It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).
Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it’s so backwards.
I vote for parties that are pro-opensource and promote opensource among friends and family. It’s all I can do.
What if the party is also for child murder?
And what if the other one who is against child murder is also anti-open source?