4 ms·
What you are describing is that changing your apparent opinion for money is abhorrent, because it confuses social elements with monetary considerations, not unl
by bertil 12y ago
What you are describing is that changing your apparent opinion for money is abhorrent, because it confuses social elements with monetary considerations, not unlike paying you mother-in-law for dinner is shocking. More example of "abhorrent" behavior, i.e. mixing realms are paying for organs, or selling meat from pets.
Occulus did something similarly unacceptable because they cashed out, in spite of fan monetary support. (Don't get me confused: I'm not accusing them of cannibalism, there are degrees in abhorrent: cashing out is low on that scale.)
Notch said he never wanted to sell because cashing out didn't make sense to him. It still doesn't. He sold because he is tired and detached: he didn't sell for money's sake, he left and took the opportunity to have paper to throw at "cancer surgery and beer". This is not abhorrent to most because both his changing motivations (keeping creative control vs. not having to deal with that responsability) are both in the same principled realm.
I would love to say this distinction is black-and-white, but any class on moral philosophy would show how it full of greys; in Notch case, the effort to stride such discrepancies is explicitly the main reason why he is leaving the company. Making moral calls in the name of a large community is exhausting; he prefers clear choices, like "fighting cancer". Good for him.
- mattdotc 12y agoAgreed. It's not a simple situation, and I tried not to pass any judgements in my original comment. I do appreciate you clearing up some of the finer points. I'm happy that he can do what he wants now without having to worry about impacting the giant brand he created. And if he sees my tongue-in-cheek claim to equity and wants to jokingly send me a few thousand dollars, I'll gladly send him my details.
- LandoCalrissian 12y agoIf he wanted to walk away there are plenty of other options there that aren't about money. Open source it, give it to the employees of Mojang, or another variety of options along the same lines. This is completely about money, which is fine, but let's not pretend like their is some superior moral virtue going on here.
- gknoy 12y agoI think one can still take a lucrative action and still not have done it "for the money". Doing something "for money" means that the money was the goal, the driving force. Selling one's controlling stake in a profitable company, even if lucrative, could be for many other reasons: a desire to focus on something else, a desire to no longer have to check e-mails, and so on. Giving it away would be magnanimous, but isn't an ethical imperative (to most people). He wanted out for the reasons he stated (couldn't deal with the social pressures), and if that happens to come with a big fat paycheck, more power to him.
- bertil 12y agoHe wasn't involved in that project for years, and still was considered its moral guardian -- cf. the tweets about the EULA. Open-sourcing would most likely have not changed that. If you though copyright was complicated, try copyleft… I am not arguing one realm is superior to another; just that handling their interactions is something Notch has expressly said he didn't want to deal with. Selling is simple.