In this case, my interest is in finding the absolute least charitable, least nebulous justification for open source I possible can. Not because I agree with the non charitable interpretation, but because if I can win the argument that open source is better without imploring charity, I can win the argument with CFOs and Bankers and Lawyers.
As soon as you start mentioning intangibles like charity and reputation and recruiting, a certain group of people will stop listening to you.
I think you can justify open source based on security, quality, and cost. If you open source correctly, you get more secure, better quality, at lower cost.
My personal philosophy is one thing. The stances I employ or postulate to sway others are a sub-set.
As soon as you start mentioning intangibles like charity and reputation and recruiting, a certain group of people will stop listening to you.
I think you can justify open source based on security, quality, and cost. If you open source correctly, you get more secure, better quality, at lower cost.
My personal philosophy is one thing. The stances I employ or postulate to sway others are a sub-set.