I am shocked—shocked!—to find that business is going on in here!

When I read Tim Bray's posting on "Open Source and Money," I was a little confused. When you're writing about something called "Open Source Business Conference," isn't it a little disingenuous to suggest that people attending need to brace themselves for the possibility that money might be a major topic of discussion? Tim's usually more sensible than this. I don't understand why he seemingly credits Ben Rockwood with some kind of insight. Of course, very little open-source software gets written for money—but why is he equating money with self-interest? Tim's list of reasons for writing open-source software?

• To solve a problem I was facing.
• To solve a problem I heard a lot of people complaining about.
• To win a point in a technical argument, by example.
• The code was interesting to write.

The only one of these that isn't obviously “self-interest” in some form or other is the second one, and let's be honest: Would the second reason stand alone, without the first and/or last? I suspect not. People's interests are not necessarily monetary, and a pure altruist is an awfully rare bird. Encouraging illusions about why people create open-source software doesn't help developers or business-people.

Our National Sick Pet

Mike Jensen of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: "In just a few days—having suffered his horrifying misstep at the Preakness Stakes on Saturday—Barbaro has gone from being a dominant 3-year-old racehorse to kind of our national sick pet." That seems to capture a lot of the sentiment. We love to root for the underdog—when he has a fighting chance. For many people, the routine destruction of injured horses has always seemed callous. One thing that's come out of Barbaro's story is a better explanation for why a broken leg really is a life-threatening injury to a horse; not just a career-ending one.