Eric Raymond vs. Larry Lessig On Open Source 265
Lindsay Sobel writes: "Eric Raymond and former Microsoft case advisor Larry Lessig have been cutting each other down in The American Prospect Online's roundtable on open-source software. Lessig calls Raymond's philosophy nothing more than Ayn Rand warmed-over, while Raymond calls the regulation Lessig endorses 'one-size-fits-all pseudo-cooperation enforced at the point of government guns.' "
The discussion is pretty interesting with great points on both sides.
Laissez-Faire (Score:4)
Not to be too anarchist here, but the govenment forces all sorts of crap on us that we would have liked, but they force things far too much, and people end up hating both the product and the government.
It's the same philosophy behind people hating products that are advertised too much. Linux has got along fine so far with only word-of-mouth advertising (for both customers and programmers) so why should things change?
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"
Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:1)
She had a great philosophy that doesn't deserve to be reduced to a stereotype.
Yes, it has its weaknesses, but let he who is blameless cast the first stone.
Great idea! (Score:3)
On second thought, then you'd get the corporate hounds bothering you to become a "registered" user so that they could claim you as a tax credit. Oh well.
As far as the regulation goes, screw that. I'd like government regulation to stay as far from open source as possible.
Give me a break (Score:2)
I mean..come on..I understand both the points they're trying to make..but <sarcasm>can we be a little more childish?</sarcasm>
Blammo! (Score:2)
Yeah! If there's going to be any pseudo-cooperation around here, ESR is going to enforce it with his own guns! Who needs the government for firepower anyway, when we have the Enforcer of Open Source around!
Lessig vs. ESR (Score:2)
ESR is a great thinker and philosopher in the Open Source movement, but in this case I think he may be mistaken. What he seeks is too great a task to accomplish. It is simply too radical for the current system to implement. Lessig takes a much more classic liberal approach which has a better chance of being taken seriously. If what ESR proposes has no precedent within the current system (and I think it does not), then it can be dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking. Lessig on the other hand wishes to see MS dealt with by the system, and while this not be optimal, it is the ONLY practical solution.
Damage is done ! (Score:1)
I wish we could just go back to the old days, when the only way was the Way of the Microsoft, and the only right opinion was the one of Bill Gates. Damn you, Eric ! Damn you, Linus !
Conspirecy! (Score:1)
its all a ploy by Bill Gates and that Reed guy to force the government force open-source software on the american public in order to further propigate the assimilation of true free software and replace it with M$ software manufacutred by the "Baby Bills" which will once again control the american subconcious through anti-competative forces, that will go unnoticed by the courts because of the M$ mindcontrol.
Or Maybe not
Re:Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:2)
Not trying to flame here.. (Score:1)
It's a shame to see bad spokespeople representing good projects.. From RMS and GNU to Theo and OpenBSD. Part of what made MS so popular was marketing, a nice message. Not an abrasive one.
Spooky. (Score:5)
--Shoeboy
ESR: mediocre polemicist, great programmer (Score:2)
contradiction? (Score:3)
Maybe there isn't one, and maybe I haven't digged through enough of ESR's writings to find the answer...if there is, do let me know. Thanks.
Hrrm (Score:1)
Is ESR sellout on int property (Score:1)
Ms Rand is spinning in her grave (Score:2)
+----------------------------------------------
I've never liked ESR. (Score:1)
Re:Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:2)
Woah! (Score:2)
I don't wanna just me-too ESR's statements, but a lot of the really strong stuff he says, ie, that we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interferance, we ARE the regulation, gets ignored by the pundits in favor of philosophical mud-slinging.
This aint about philosophy, it's about code. Sure, the US government could go in a regulate the internet as we use it into oblivion, but I don't think that such action would be allowed to stand.
--
blue
Larry all the way... (Score:2)
"His history is a bit too Torvalds focused imho [in my humble opinion]"
So that's that that means. I keep seeing "IMHO" it all over the place and no one would ever tell me what it meant! I wish I were a law student at Harvard and could have this guy as a professor, he must be amazing!
Re:Damage is done ! (Score:1)
More ESR bashing (Score:1)
Ok, more karma loss...
Re:contradiction? (Score:1)
Sorry - I've never seen ESR advocate government intervention in the case of MS, quite the opposite. In fact I've heard him say - many times - that we should let market do its thing, let it take Microsoft down, and to government: Hands off !
(If a view that contradicts the above has been brought forth in the article referenced in the beginning of this story, then I apologize - I haven't read it all).
Read Lessig's piece (Score:1)
It is better than the sound bite.
Re:**sound of glass breaking** (Score:1)
(Arguably even better is the alternative sex life of the voyeur living next door
Things change... (Score:4)
Second of all, as a Libertarian, I feel a need to step and and clarify what the federal government is doing in regards to MS. The federal government represents the people, and the people's interests (in an ideal world, but we will not get into that). The federal government is acting on behalf of the American public to stop what it perceives as a corporation that is hurting that same American public.
The federal government has a ridiculously short list of tasks it is given (most are spelled out in the Constitution). While one of them is to stay back from the economy whenever possible (Laissez-Faire), it also has an obligation to see that the rules of capitalism are not broken. These two "rules" are sometimes at odds.
According to the federal government's findings, Microsoft has practiced behaviours that are monopolistic in nature. The federal government has a right, and an obligation, to step in and prevent such actions in order to further the capitalistic system we have, despite its general Laissez-Faire approach.
Third, Linux has gotten to the point where "word of mouth" is no longer going to be the only form of "evangilism" and advertising. This is not due to anyone's set wishes, but simply rather due to the acceptance and size that Linux currently has. "Word of mouth" would not have Redhat boxes on store shelves. "Word of mouth" would not have the now infamous Linux-related IPOs. Your post screams of radical conservatism, and cries for returning to "the good old days". This simply is not possible.
As with anything, time goes on and things change. Sometimes we may not like these things, but they happen regardless. The best thing the Linux community can do is adapt to the changing conditions, just as the operating system itself has done over the years. This does not require GNU/Linux people to "sell out", but rather adapt. They have come this far, getting bigger is not going to change those base ideals now. It might just change the approach taken.
On the subject of non-profits... (Score:3)
Now on the same lines: would it be a stretch to register more open source projects as not-for-profit? It seems a bit of a tax hack. Basically, have the project as a profitless entity, receiving donations from businesses who are looking for extra features (all added to the general source so the public can benefit, of course,) and paying programmers for their work from those donations, keeping only a 'little bit' of the money for administrative purposes.
This could subsidize our patents (better that we get them for the world to use before someone tries to copyright the while loop)
And, for successful projects, the maintainers can still make a healthy salary. (Didn't Elizabeth Dole make 600k/year for heading up the American Red Cross? -- and don't even start on the United Way or the RIAA, for that matter.)
Isn't the hack all about taking what you're given and using it in such a creative way you impress your friends? Let's impress our 'friends' in Congress by taking their tricks and showing what we can do with them.
How about "The Apache Scholarship" for a top student in CS that has performed valuable community service for the Apache community? More directly, churches pay pastors and others for services rendered, certainly our non-profits could do the same thing.
(Note: there are some noticable problems with this, the least of which would be international concerns. However, government involvment certainly wouldn't be any better.)
--Eric
Re:Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:2)
No she didn't. I've read some of her stuff, and here theories are fundamentally unsound. Basically, she tries to use logic, but her initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. And they are unfounded.
Rand might have loved like in the UK around the time of the industrial revolution, that is, if she wasn't a sustenance worker. Conditions were terrible. Our history over the past few hundred years has been to move away from her ideas, not towards them.
The bottom line is, her ideas depend everyone being perfect, and only a very few acting on a 'subhuman level'. Yet, she provides no reason for those people to do so. She, in actuality is as utopian as Marx and other communists. And her system would be as fallible, if implemented.
Ambassador?! (Score:2)
Now, having read both exchanges for round one and gotten thoroughly disgusted, I'll make my opinions known - first - both of these people are acting like the "adult" version of "I'm better than you are". Comeon - you had time to calm down, research your facts, and speak intelligently. Why didn't you?!
Last.. if you want my opinion on how so-called open source needs to be protected, it's simple: make sure the community has the legal options to keep doing what it's doing. We don't need more control, nor do we need less - there is a balance somewhere between laize fair(sp?) and government-lockdown-mode that we need to plant ourselves firmly on. Mistrust assertions that the correct answer is at the extreme. That last statement applies particularily well to engineering .. and since we are engineers - if only for software - we ought to take heed of some of the warnings of engineering. Yes, SOME government control IS necessary. If not, click-wrap licensing could easily put a serious damper on open source - imagine if Microsoft said "by using this software you agree to not use program X on any machine you use and/or interact with via any medium, including the internet, your local LAN..." What's to stop them? A paragraph in
Lawrence Lessig is a digbat (Score:2)
Hopefuly I'm not the only one who has more than a minor revulsion to his writing. Granted, ESR isn't the most sane man alive but Lessig can't seem to read....
To summarize: M$ isn't evil because they violated (equally stupid) anit-trust laws but because they lie to their comsumers and sell inferior products. If they can't sell their inferior products they attempt to force them down the throats of comsumers via any channel they can.
Regulation is bad any way you slice it. Laws, excepting those barring physical and finacial abuse, are usually unneeded and restrictive. The internet did not grow up in a culture of regulation as Lessig suggests. Sharing common lines with the phone system does not mean ay of the communication was regulated (or at leats not regulated in any enforcible way). Regulation on the internet would be restrictive. It would retard the growth of the already ill new ecomony and the new way of life.
The only reaosn regulation has ever been needed is because people are stupid. If people actually paid attention to who and what they were voting for our government would be much better. If they paid attention to what they bought rather than which product will make them sexier we'd have better products. Government has only been the framework for trade/commerce because people were too lazy to do it themselves.
Re:I've never liked ESR. (Score:2)
I agree with you totally. All the software that he mentions on his home page [tuxedo.org] appeared there through divine intervention, and he can in no way be held accountable for their creation.
Re:Great idea! (Score:3)
Why not subsidize zero businesses and let us keep our money, to patronize the causes we actually like?
Re:Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:2)
I would balk at calling it "great".
However, I would go so far as to agree that it has a lot of appeal for 14 year old boys who aspire to be the next Bill Gates.
For many of the rest of us, it comes more naturally to view it as dangerous nonsense.
(Perhaps I should have said "next Larry Ellison", since after the MSFT plunge he now apparently has the world's largest net worth.)
--
Re:Lessig vs. ESR (Score:2)
While free software sidesteps this problem, it doesn't address it head on. The system is fundementally flawed and needs to be changed from the inside out.
Microsoft is merely a symptom.
Geek neolibertarianism (Score:5)
In psychology there's a concept called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; basically you have to have the basics in life accounted for before you can get into the more refined and esoteric stuff. We're able to do open-source software not just because of government-mandated intellectual-property regulation (though that's a very real effect that Lessig argues for well), but also because someone else made physical life easy for us, and in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) that someone was everyone, in the form of government trying to establish an equal basis. Technocorporate America isn't going to create the kind of society where you can work on cool code for free and still have food, clothing and shelter; they don't have the agenda, and they frankly don't have the social clue it would take.
It may seem non-germane to the IP-law argument to talk about broader social structures, but they're all part of the same viewpoint (basically, that far libertarianism is for blind kooks).
As someone else pointed out on
Oh well, that's my rant. I'm sure most of the
(note that I'm not slagging ESR personally, just his viewpoint - Even though I don't think as much of his OSS papers as some people, I've actually long had respect for him, pretty much ever since he took over editing the Jargon file / NHD)
Raymond is getting schooled (Score:3)
It's not that Raymond or Libertarians (e.g., virulently anti-socialist objectivist gun-owners) in general don't have some interesting points, but as usual he's taking their arguments way too far and coming up with the usual Libertarian nonsense...all government and government regulation is bad, the Internet will give birth to a free society, blah blah blah.
I honestly wish Raymond would stick to championing Open Source rather than trying to inject his Libertarian ideals where they are really irrelevant and don't belong. At least he's pretty good at the former. Kudos to Lessig for a well-thought out argument.
-W.W.
Open Source is not American (Score:2)
Sorry kids.
Open source is not american. The internet is not American. It might have been at one point, but it's not any more.
Neither ESR's ranting, nor Lessig's reasoned response address this global scope.
This makes ESR's 'The government and Microsoft are EVIL' comment extremely funny. Like the US government could harm the 'Open Source Movement' by regulating it. Sorry, but anything international is basically reduced to a 'least common denominator' approach to legislation. The world hasn't even harmonized all the various Copyright Laws out there yet, and it's had about 50 years to do so. So, do you think regulating open source could possibly work? Laws inside America to protect american companies might actually help, or they might help very little, but they certainly won't kill it entirely, nor will they cause Open Source to succeed where it otherwise would not. We're talking about a 10% boost versus a 10% decrease, as a maximum. Therefore the overwrought doomsday-verbiage of ESR is at once amusing, and pathetic. Lessig is certainly the more believable of the two, but even he fails to point out the international angle.
Of course, I've noticed that to many Americans, the Rest of the World is just a place to go on Vacation. "Look Marge, there's a native. Let's see if we can take his picture before he notices, and gets mad at us, for stealing his soul."
Just Some Guy From Canada
The lot of em can hang (Score:5)
Just to respond to some posts:
ESR is NOT a definitive part of what we do. WE ARE.
ESR is not a great thinker. He is a clever manipulator. Lessig is not any better.
We are better than this. RMS's viral license, ESR's mouth and BP's ego do a dis-service to the work WE put in. You do not really see LT shooting his mouth off, do ya.
These three (and Lessig) are a joke. There may have been a time when RMS/ESR/BP made some contributions. Their time is past. The revolution is over. Linux won. Linux has legitimacy. It has coders. It has capital. It has standing. It has market share.
We need to retire the revolutionaries. In the US, we transitioned from a revolutionary tribunal to a Federal Republic. In France, they did not make the transition, and the revolutionaries committed atrocities and sold it out to Bonaparte.
Where do we want to be 5 years from now?
Retire them. They did their bit. But they are mucking up the jobs we need to do now. We need leaders, not ESR's bad logic and big mouth and warmed over Rand. We need people who can build something of this momentum.
If Linux loses momentum, you can place the blame not with the coders or the code, but the fanatics who represent us poorly.
Tom Dutton
haha - Re:Spooky. (Score:2)
MS Open Sourced??? (Score:2)
Distributing source code is not the primary force driving Open Source Software. Rather it facilitates the growth of development communities around an application. ESR remarks that he does not believe developers will approach Windows source to improve it as an operating system, rather "mine" it for information useful in creating interoperatable apps.
If this is the primary goal of any remedy in the MS vs DOJ case, opening the code to Windows is not the only solution. If MS is split then it makes good business sense for each unit to encourage interoperability. Something companies have been doing one way or another for years without opening their source. As for who should apply the remedy, the only party with the ability to guarantee enforcement is the US government.
Lessig and regulation (Score:2)
I have two points here.
1) I tend to agree with ESR generally. I used to do regulatory policy analysis for a living and the gulf between what Lessig says will happen in terms of sensible regulation and what actually will happen is enormous. People often think of regulation as being a set of rules handed down by Congress (advised by people like Lessig, of course), and therefore somewhat visible and subject to analysis by us geeks. But that's not the case at all. Congress delegates its enforcement powers to agencies, which sets up a convenient group to blame when the regulations end up being subverted or twisted by ignorant/power-hungry bureaucrats. There isn't a single case of regulation in the U.S. where this does not go on to some extent. After all, who blames Congress for the excesses of the ADA? No one. We blame the various agencies (ATBCB primarily) who enforce it, and of course they're unelected. This is exactly what will happen if Lessig gets his way, and of course no one will blame him personally when it goes bad. We'll blame the U.S. Software Development Agency.
2) It is very striking, when reading the essays, how Lessig's "book knowledge" of the Internet's workings matches up with ESR's working knowledge. This continues to support my view that Lessig is basically a charlatan -- a good example is ESR's point that there are four GPL-like open-source licenses, of which the GPL is just one. Lessig is oblivious to subtleties like that. He's made a name for himself in this area, and now that the pond has gotten a lot bigger, he's used to being the biggest fish.
-BBB
Re:contradiction? (Score:2)
Yes, well I don't know the inner workings of the ESR mind any more then anyone else, but I can tell you what it probably means. It means that he hasn't really thought the problem through. He has his Ideals on the one hand, and his Ideas on the other. They are not compatible, really, but he doesn't notice this himself. He doesn't see the contradiction because he hasn't looked. He grasps so strongly to the Ludicrous "Pure logic" ideals like those of Ayn Rand. And this, is what makes him Not a great thinker, despite what he would like to believe himself.
In other words, the contradiction is there, and apparent, because ESR is a dumbass.
(burn karma burn! Lets see if I can get into the 60s on this thread
The most important point... (Score:4)
'One reason an acknowledgement of both past and present regulation is needed is so we can move public debate away from the false "should there be public policy" question to the real question of "which public policy" should be promoted?' (Newman at http://www.prospect.org/controversy/open_source/n
Intellectual experiments in anarchy work about as well as they always have: they don't. The 'Net is now a matter of public interest and public policy, and people need to stop pretending no one in government or law enforcement knows it exists. Telecommunications have been regulated in every country since the turn of the century, an it is hard to see how universal access, limited tolls and extensive innovation and research would ever have happened without it.
There will be laws that specifically regulate internet access and standards and computer design and construction, just as there are for telephones, TV's, radios, cars and the postal system. This is inevitable and in the past turned out to mostly be a good thing. We can have stupid internet policies, but we can't pretend there will be no policies.
Okay. I got it. (Score:2)
That way, everyone gets what they want. Companies can develop their own internal toos that meet their needs, bugs can be fixed faster, and people will base their product on the skills of their programmers, and the quality of the end product. What if someone steals your code? shouldn't be hard to prove.. as every software sale must have source.
Re:Is ESR sellout on int property (Score:2)
Open Source and Libertarianism, different things (Score:2)
So why do they always seem to belong together in discussions like this? Isn't ESR promoting his own politics on other issues too much while promoting Open Source? Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I'm European though. That could be it.
Re:Laissez-Faire (Score:2)
On the Regulation of AT&T (Score:2)
But the AT&T monopoly was created by the U.S. Government, via -- that's right -- regulation. Those interested in this history can see it online:
Here is a good history. [cato.org]
So, after a point maybe you are right -- maybe the only solution was to use the government to force some outcome on old AT&T. But to say this justifies "regulation" is analogous to cranking up your radio because you have your TV on so loud you cannot hear it. I trust the analogy is not lost on you.
As for the identification of contract law, property rights, etc, with "regulation" -- well, WHATever. I would call these things "law", say, perhaps "commercial law", and then call "regulation" something else -- such as: a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law (definition from www.m-w.com [m-w.com]).You takes your terms, and you makes your argument. As long as you are clear that essentially any governmental action is "regulation", then I suspect you will find a lot of people that think some "regulation" might be OK.
But if you restrict regulation to meaning something more like what is in Merriam Websters, then you are going to find some of us in the libertarian camp parting ways with you. The rule of law, property rights and other human rights -- these are one thing. Government fiat is another. Most people, I hope, can tell the difference. By conflating the two, you weaken your argument.
Re:Geek neolibertarianism (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you do the governing of all others. It's good to be grand high ruler of the entire universe.
Bad Mojo
stop taking anarchism in vain, thanks ESR (Score:2)
(Why? Because egalitarian free-association runs into problems in an economic system which gives people power based on their wealth. Just by way explanation. My main point is just to show a little respect. I don't recall any free-marketers being jailed or deported from the US for their beliefs.)
Re:Don't take Ayn Rand's name in vain... (Score:4)
Hah! Her own writings reduced whatever complex ideas she may have had to a stereotype.
Here's a summation of every Ayn Rand book:
"If only those damn looters would leave us alone!"
"You must do what we tell you, creators, or we will kill you!"
"You do everything at the end of a gun!"
"We do everything at the end of a gun...and LIKE IT!"
"Good thing the looters destroyed themselves, as was inevitable! They only knew how to do things -- AT THE END OF A GUN!!!!!!!"
"If only we had more guns we would have crushed you, aaargh!"
It was very deep stuff...
Re:Not trying to flame here.. (Score:2)
They're both loud mouthed iconclasts - my kind of people! I respect them both highly, and they're both on the list of people I'd gladly buy a beer (or other refreshing beverage of choice) if I met in person. But that doesn't mean I'm in 100% - or even more than, say, 70% - agreement with either one.
Re:Ayn Rand was/is awesome! (Score:3)
Lessig is right (Score:4)
Government doesn't always get the rules and regulations right. Government is influenced by special interest lobbying, by bogus economic theories, and often, they just get it wrong. But a laissez-faire approach is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In order to live in a prosperous, free market society, we need to get government to work properly.
Raymond could be correct in arguing that in the Microsoft case in particular, government action is not needed anymore, that other forces have already worked to reduce Microsoft's importance and influence. But it's false to base that argument on "the invisible hand"--for a market like the one Microsoft operates in, a monopoly is a very plausible outcome. If open source can, by itself, compete with Microsoft, it's because Microsoft has missed opportunity after opportunity, and it's because the goverment investigation has already restrained their behavior greatly (without it, PC companies would likely continue to be contractually prohibited from preloading anything other than Windows). But, in addition about ensuring a free market in PC software in the future, the law suit is as much about punishing past misbehavior (and discouraging others from engaging in it) as it is about addressing current failures of the market.
I should say, incidentally, that I don't view Microsoft as all evil. But they have done some things that no large company should be allowed to do in a free market, and it appears to me that they have, at least for the time being, a natural monopoly, something that requires some government supervision to ensure that the consumer isn't harmed, just like electricity and telephone.
Americans seem to love to hate law and government. A healthy distrust of government is probably always a good idea, but ultimately, there is no democracy or free market without the rule of law and a government to enforce it. A free market and "the invisible hand" work only under a specific set of social and economic parameters and government needs to create and maintain those parameters.
It's valuable to debate individual policies on their specific merits and effects, but general arguments that with less government regulation, the "invisible hand" will take care of things are not based in economic reality.
Why open source is popular and how to maintain it (Score:2)
1. The hackers. You can't say enough about the efforts of the BSDers, RMS, Linus, etc., to make it happen and to make it work well. Even ESR gets some credit here, too.
2. The internet. The US government started it, let the geeks design it, funded it for a while, and opened it up to the world. The ARPANET is one the best things that the US government did in the past century. This is not to say that the US is not trying to screw things up in other ways.
3. Wintel (and Moore's law). For all their faults, Intel and Microsoft have popularized the cheap, powerful machines that make it possible to run Unix.
4. The government prosecution of Microsoft. This has forced Microsoft to behave just as open source appeared on MS's radar screen. Without government pressure, MS would have tried to crush open source using all possible means. Maybe it would have been more fun that way with open source being the perennial underdog and us screaming bloody murder all the time.
So by this count, the actions of the big, bad US government is crucial on two points, and big, bad business led to the machines that make it possible to run the OSes and software we know and love. Maybe it wasn't their intent, but it is hard to see this as the work of the devil(s).
How to maintain open source? Keep writing code and make your voice heard. Keep writing code that is open both in license and in making the power of the computer and computer networks available to everyone.
Open Standards (Score:2)
A similar argument could be made for the government using only open-source software. After all, using proprietary software for public and national uses could lead to trouble.
So, I think there is an argument for the government using only open standards and open source, where possible and practical. Not as policy designed to bolster the open-source movement, but just because it makes sense.
Re:Ayn Rand was/is awesome! (Score:2)
Aye, and there's the rub. Rand essentially says that the only force is "AT THE END OF A GUN!!!!"
But is that the only kind of force? What if I buy every plot of land around yours, and post that i will shoot trespassers. Certainly I have that right, as I purchased (and own) the land legitimately. You run out of food. What happens? You can't get out to get more food, and none can be delivered to you. I'm not directly applying force, but I'm certainly killing you (just not actively).
Now say that I'm a giant company that owns every store in town, as well as every house. I sell food to my workers and rent them rooms, but if they strike I fire them. Then they're kicked out of their home and I refuse to sell them food at the company store. What if they're not close enough to walk to the next town? Do they deserve to die simply because the company happened to own everything around?
Rand, IMHO, takes a very myopic view of how force may manifest itself. Only a weak person has to use a gun -- those in positions of true power/strength/influence can do far more damage through the press, by blacklisting you for employment, by bringing economic pressure to bear.
If you've spent your life building a company, worked hard and been successful, but MS comes along and steals your code, thereby destroying your company and your ability to make a living (with that company and your investments in it), is that not applying force? Ask Stac who the deck was stacked against, regardless of how "right" they were. Their ability to force in court was lesser than MS's ability to force in the market. The best they can say is that they were at least bought out in the end rather than forced to fight for 20 years in court so that their grandchildren could feel proud of them. But hey, no one pulled a gun, so it must be okay...
Re:On the Regulation of AT&T (Score:2)
What w2k didn't like was (Score:2)
"...a colossal, ugly hairball -- a tissue of bad design and worse improvisations. Hacking on it and trying to get any re-use out of it would be probably about as much fun as a picnic in a toxic-waste dump. " ESR
Geesh, w2k had to do SOMETHING about that, quick!
To attack Ayn Rand is to attack yourself... (Score:2)
The basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy is the assumption that the most valuable commodities within a culture are the individuals that compose it. I am comfortable with this assumption, and I need no proof.
Each individual within the culture commits a crime against themselves if they fail to realize and honor the value of others or of self.
To call such an attitude sophomoric is to commit an act of self-immolation. I have no interest in such people.
Cultures that do not value the individual transfer both achievement and blame to the unworthy. I have no interest in such cultures.
The extent of the failure of her philosophy is its failure to realize the value of other individuals. Her catastrophic breakup with Nathaniel Branden will attest to this.
What about the French solution... (Score:2)
Clinton could simply state that every agency under the executive branch of government must investigate the appropriateness of open-source solutions.
Or he could ban the purchase of any software that does not provide source-code (it has improved my computing experience, why not the Feds).
Nearly every monitor on the market is Energy Star compliant. Why? Because the Feds said they wouldn't buy anything that wasn't. There were no laws detailing how manufacturers would produce monitors to be in compliance. They simply said, "We won't buy your crap if it ain't." The Feds have such a large buying power that, voila, everyone complies. "If you do not document you software completely, including all protocols and document formats, we will not buy your crap." Of course, the easiest way to do this is to release source. Microsoft (or anyone else) won't be forced to do anything differently, but watch how their behavior will change.
Re:On the Regulation of AT&T (Score:3)
And does it or does it not matter where the cable monopolies came from?
As for the identification of contract law, property rights, etc, with "regulation" -- well, WHATever. I would call these things "law", say, perhaps "commercial law", and then call "regulation" something else.
I agree, this aspect of Lessig's argument is confused by fuzzy language. However it does not follow that regulation in the dictionary sense is inherently evil. Accepting the Merriam Webster definition, the morality of regulation depends a great deal upon the basis upon which the "executive authority or regulatory agency" derives its power to issue a particular regulation.
Obviously, things can go wrong in many places -- the law may be bad, inconsistent or unclear; the regulatory implementation of the law may be incorrect, impractical, or ineffectual. Enforcement of the regulation may be too lax or too aggressive. All of which is to say it is a good thing to be skeptical of regulation.
However this does not support the very strong blanket assertion that regulation in the dictionary sense is inherently evil or misbegotten. You need much stronger evidence to support that conclusion.
Re:Geek neolibertarianism (Score:5)
I don't think the existence of specialized people is an argument against libertarianism.
Yes, someone else does the hard work of growing the food, but they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or because the state mandates that they feed you. They do it because you pay them money. And you have money to pay them because, as useless and unimportant as Unix consulting seems to you, someone else needs it, and decided that it was in their interest to pay you for it. They don't see it as useless at all.
There's an exchange rate between wheat farming and Unix consulting, where that rate is a function of the difficulty of the work, the supply of workers, the demand of work, the prerequisite education expense, and a bunch of other factors that I can't begin to imagine. We convert those two types of work into a "standard" value: money. Money is what lets you specialize, not any "enforced social system".
---
Who is more valuable? (Score:3)
If I worked on a farm, I could grow enough food to feed (say) 2 people. Say I create a new strain of corn so that each farmer can now grow food to feed 3 people. If there are a hundred farmers, I've increased the food produced by 50%, instead of the 2% from my own labor.
I am also in computer science. I am valuable to society not because I do manual labor, but by creating software and ideas that make other people more productive in their jobs.
Re:The lot of em can hang (Score:4)
I think you misunderstand and underappreciate the time-honored art of flamage. Why do you think that interesting ideas can be only expressed in monotonous bureacratese or polite-and-grammatically-correct sentences? This is public debate, an art form, and skillful jabs at the opponent are appreciated.
ESR is not a great thinker. He is a clever manipulator. Lessig is not any better.
As opposed to you, I take it? ESR and Lessig think and express themselves better than about 99% of humanity. That's good enough for me. If that's not good enough for you, you can go and write better essays, right?
Linux won.
And what it is exactly that Linux won? Was there some contest that is now over and done with?
We need to retire the revolutionaries.
And do what? Get back to our cubicles? Concentrate on allowing another dot-com to make an IPO? Take Bill Gates/Larry Ellison/Scott McNealy as our heroes?
In France, they did not make the transition, and the revolutionaries committed atrocities and sold it out to Bonaparte.
Err... I'll ignore your strange view of French history for the time being, but this is a metaphor for what? Do you expect Linux, ESR, and RMS to go around wiping the hard drives of whom? I don't really know... and then sell out to whom again? To our friend Bill? Or to Larry, since as of yesterday he is now the richest kid on the block?
I don't think you are making sense.
Kaa
Re:Laissez-Faire (Score:4)
Read the debate this story linked to. Read the articles that provoked the debate. (Lessig's [prospect.org] in particular.) And learn your history.
Linux got where it is by copying the implementation of Unix. Unix got where it was through heavy government involvement, funding, and forced standardization. Unix then became a quagmire of incompatible proprietary forks when the government stopped promoting Unix and enforcing open Unix standards, and instead left Unix development to the wonders of the free market.
Linux (and, more to the point, all the Open Source software that actually runs things, like Apache, BIND, and Sendmail) got where it is by harnessing the open nature of the Internet. The Internet is open because the government developed TCP/IP to be content-agnostic, and forced open access laws on the telecommunications network which currently "is" the Internet. As the Internet evolves to cable/wireless networds which currently don't operate under the same open access laws, the environment which fostered the growth of OSS like Linux will instead be owned by corporations like AOL/TW to do with as they please. This is not because of an absence of government regulation, but rather because the type of government regulation that currently applies to cable networks is different from the type that applies to phone networks. All networks in this country are and will continue to be regulated by the government. The only question is how.
That's the point Lessig makes, and ESR so conveniently avoids, instead arguing that "open-source developers...share a gut-level sense, born of experience, that handing governments more power is more likely in the long term to injure the Internet (and all its potentials for human freedom and property) than to help it grow." What's his evidence for this? Laws like CDA, UCITA, and DMCA--laws passed by politicians who are ignorant of the open-source heritage of the Internet and instead fed propaganda by corporate lobbyists.
Ok, fine. So what's the solution, Eric? Fight to put open access and OSS back on the government agenda? Hire our own lobbyists to teach lawmakers the truth? Use the government's power to redress the harm they've caused by abondoning the development of computing standards to proprietary closed-source corporations like MS?
No, silly. The solution is to ignore the problem, since it will go away. After all, the government doesn't have anything to do with technology or the operations of the "free" market anyways.
Reason is dangerous nonesense?? (Score:2)
Check it out. I don't agree with half the things she says, or the way she shifts definitions around to meet her needs. I do agree that reason is the sole tool that man posses to evaluate the world in which he lives.
Do you know what Lessig is suggesting? (Score:2)
Until someone can explain to me why it's a good idea for these mega-corporations to be allowed to leverage their size and ownership of key resources to dictate how and what we can connect to, and to squeeze smaller competitors out, I agree with Lessig: this kind of regulation is important.
I haven't seen many posts addressing this specific issue. I wonder how many actually realize what's being discussed?
Re:Geek neolibertarianism (Score:2)
Why can't I just print my own money? The technology is not that difficult, and it's probably a lot simpler than working for somebody else. The only thing stopping me is that groundwork of society.
Actually, I lied. These days, money is just a number in a computer at a bank. How does that number get special treatment? What keeps other numbers in other computers from having the same properties? The groundwork of society.
There have been plenty of societies in the past with simpler notions of money, in which there was no paper money and coins were valued at their quantity of precious metal. Those systems don't support particularly robust economies, though, at least not by modern standards. A solid economy requires a universally accepted monetary standard. Where does that come from?
RMS an embarassment? (Score:3)
Put simply, he believes that denying people access to information they need is wrong. Ever.
Now most people don't agree with this, or at least they don't act as if they agree with this 100%, 100% of the time. Now, he may think, and probably does think, that this produces better software, but IIRC it is basically irrelevant to him.
I don't agree completely with RMS, or at least I haven't thought things through enough to know whether I do. But I do respect him because he fights fair. He never, ever uses his project credential to pull rank in a fight, although if anybody could, he could. He never claims to be a spokesman for anybody else's views but his own. He doesn't obfuscate his ideas in pleasing academic metaphors or subtle code words -- it's there and you can agree with him or part ways, your choice.
America is a country that likes to pretend we're a bunch of straight shooters, when in fact we love to follow phonies. You can't get any media respect unless you're a bald faced self promoter and liar (I mean, unless you are media savvy). When we meet the real thing, our reaction is scorn.
Re:Lessig and regulation (Score:2)
I don't think Lessig says what will happen. I think one of his main points is that some kind of regulation will happen, like it or not. He doesn't specify what, only that there'll be something.
my view that Lessig is basically a charlatan
Oh, is he? For a charlatan he can think very very cleanly and can express himself very well. I take it you have read his book ("Code and other laws of cyberspace") and it's all mumbo-jumbo, right? No sense at all, just a lot of confusing words and longer-than-three-words sentences. Must be a charlatan. Right.
Lessig's "book knowledge" of the Internet's workings matches up with ESR's working knowledge.
Of course, they were discussing not the technical details of the inner working of the 'net, but rather laws and government regulation thereof -- a subject in which Lessig likely has more working knowledge.
a good example is ESR's point that there are four GPL-like open-source licenses, of which the GPL is just one. Lessig is oblivious to subtleties like that.
And exactly which point of Lessig's does this fact invalidate?
Kaa
Motivations behind open source development (Score:5)
What's the value of a piece of software, as a physical commodity, in the sense that a piece of software is something that sits on your hard drive, takes up space, and hopefully does something that you find useful.
Here's one possible heirarchy for software value, in order from most worthless to most valuable:
1) A binary that no longer works is worthless. It has negative value in that it is a waste of disk space. Maybe the operating system API changed, or the hardware vendor changed the architecture slightly and broke the binary, or perhaps an intractable bug has come to light. Doesn't matter. The value of this software is zero. You can't use it, or you wouldn't want to. This is the fate of most commercial software in the long run, especially commercial software that runs on propriatary operating systems.
2) An unsupported binary is slightly more valuable, but not in the long run. Someday it will most likely enter category one, especially if it runs on a proprietary operating system. There's a lot of software, especially freeware, created and released with the best intentions, that exists in a publically available form only as MSDOS or obsolete Windows binaries. Relying on this sort of software is like being a passenger on an airplane with a dead pilot soaring through the sky on autopilot. So far, so good, you're getting from point A to point B, but you'd better have a parachute.
3) Supported binaries are more valuable. Commercial, shrink-wrapped software makes up most of this category. Of course, when you depend on binary level support, you know that any time you may be forced to upgrade, or your software supplier may discontinue the product, and your existing binary will enter category two, which you don't want.
Hardware with closed source drivers is also in category three.
One danger of category three software is that sometimes it slips into category two without notice. When we upgraded one of our Sun workstations to Solaris 7, for Y2K purposes, for instance, we had to eliminate a $1500.00 third-party ATM interface, not because of any problem with the interface, but because the vendor had, without our knowledge, discontinued driver support. The interface makes a nice, if expensive, paperweight.
The conventional wisdom in the software publishing world is that commercial software belongs in category three. Category three provides the most leverage by the software provider over the users of the software, and hence, the most opportunity for revenue. As part of one operating system upgrade, we had to re-purchase thousands of dollars worth of binary application software, because of changes to the operating system that broke the applications. This vendor made a lot of money off of us, and the new versions of the software had no new features -- they had just been recompiled to work with the new kernel.
4) Software with restrictive source code availability is more valuable. In this case, you have the source code, but few, if any other people have the source code, and in any event, you are unable to effectively collaborate with them, This includes both source code obtained under an NDA, and, more importantly, software you've written yourself but never published.
You have, at least in theory, the ability to keep this type of software working yourself, but you run the risk of having to actually put the theory into practice, and in a worst case scenario, you may find yourself having to dedicate tremendous resources to keeping the software working, and who wants that?
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
Yup, Lessing took some CS in collage. None of the others did. I don't really think he "Defines Open source" though...
Re:Open Source and Libertarianism, different thing (Score:2)
Government regulation protects the people from big companies.
Huh? The governement == big companies, at least in practice. Governement regulation protects big companies from small companies and individuals they have managed to screw over.
You are right though that Open Source and Libertarianism are different things. How ever, both have this individualistic flavor.... That we (the regular guys) can take care of ourselves very well, thank you, Mr. Big Company/Governement. And not only do we take care of ourselves, we excell, more so than we would do if you tried to "help" us. Thus, I think a lot of Libertarians would find a lot to like in Open Source philosophy, if you will.
So, I am sure that not all open source believers are libertarians, but that many libertarians also argee with open source... I wish I could draw you a Venn diagram...
Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I don't think so. See above.
I'm European though. That could be it.
No offense, but probably. Americans seem to be much more individualistic than most other peoples. Is this good, bad, better, worse? I think better. But of course I do, I am an American.
So whatever. A socialist, or whatever can also like open source. Open source isn't just for libertarians. But libertarians sure seem to like open source...
Re:ESR too far afield... (Score:4)
Firstly the crucial case was heard in 1911. (Although the order to dissolve the trust - actually a deal with the railroad owners - was made in 1892)
In fact, consumers didn't benefit from the Standard breakup.
Considering that the charge they were found guilty of was price fixing, this statement is a little odd. The whole set up of Standard Oil was to use its monopoly in oil (90%+) to gain a stranglehold on the railways which prevented his competitors from being able to sustain margins.
Do not be mislead by the price of oil - the key in the price kerosene (in 1890 few people had cars). To quote from the Atlantic Monthly of 1881
I'd advise you get the facts straight before talking about the case.Incidently, The Atlantic Monthly [theatlantic.com] article is a good read, mainly because something 119 years old is still so relevent. Here is the closing paragraph
If nothing else, it may help get the Microsoft thing into perspective.
Re:Lessig and regulation (Score:2)
Lessig seems to be saying "If all these bad things happen, and we don't do anything about them, then the Net will not be free." The problem with that is that it's a counterfactual. Yes, bad things are happening to the Net -- but people are constantly doing things about it. Who in the world would have, three or four years ago, predicted the popularity of Napster? (As I am a college sysadmin, I of course don't like Napster -- but I tolerate it and I respect it as an example of a distributed system, albeit a kludgy one.) Napster, to a greater degree Gnutella, and to an infinitely greater degree Freenet are all means people have come up with to circumvent what they see as restrictions being placed on the Net.
No, the Net is not inherently free. However, it is free enough now, and there are enough people who know how to hack it, that any attempt to enslave it would be like nailing jelly to a tree.
Re:More ESR bashing (Score:2)
Re:What about the French solution... (Score:2)
Beware of any post that contains both the phrases "French Solution" and "Clinton could"...!
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
Actually, Lessig has advocates a similar viewpoint to this. He presents the argument that the most important regulation of the internet is not made as policy, but in the design and implementation of the hardware and software that comprise it, aka "code is law". I think what he's advocating is using the government's influence to ensure that this situation continues, to keep the development of the internet in the hands of the technicial people, rather than at the whims of corporate PHBs.
The real question is can you do that without government PHBs screwing it all up.
ESR and Ayn Rand, comment by an actual Objectivist (Score:2)
I don't know much about ESR, except from the things he's written and tales of his gun hobby. I've never met him. I don't foresee that I ever will. Thus, any reference to his personality is, for my purposes, not only a fallacious means of attempting to discredit his ideas, it's just plain irrelevant.
However, notice the "arguments" used against his ideas, such as they are: "Oh, he's just a Randroid, and he should grow up", "Oh, the government does all these things for us and always has, so the government must be responsible for our country's prosperity","oh, he's just a wacko", etc. etc. All in all, there has not been a single substantial, worthwhile objection to his criticisms of government regulation or his support of laissez-faire (to the extent he does support it). Everything I've seen so far has been personality attacks, truth by assertion, and other assorted non-rebuttals. (truth by assertion = if you believe something strongly enough, and assert it often and vehemently enough, then it must be true)
There are many critiques to make of ESR's position, but in my case I would do so only to help a fellow-traveller steer himself on a more clear and stable course. In any battle of ideas, the most consistent side will win the day - which is why any advocate of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, such as ESR appears to be to some extent, must take great pains to weed out any contradictory ideas he may hold.
If he does that, then and only then will I accept him as a fellow "Randroid".
(PS. I use that term proudly, and tongue-in-cheek, as a symbol both of the fact that Objectivism is not just a "phase" for those who actually understand it, and the fact that I have never encountered a critique of Rand or Objectivism that wasn't essentially an attack on her personality. If someone is going to critique her ideas, then please do.. but if one is going to critique her ideas, shouldn't one first be able to - at the very least - present some understanding of them in the first place?)
Read some of Lessig's papers (Score:2)
While most of us have a guy instinct towards the Libertarian ideal of no government, he makes a very compelling arguement as to why it is absurd.
One arguement that I found compelling, is that regulation comes in a few forms, legal regulations, social regulations, physical/code regulations, and another that I forget. I don't recall if this was from one of his papers or one of the papers that was background to read some of his other works...
The arguement is that while the state can pass a law, social rules have as much influence as the law. Additionally, there are fundamental laws as well. For example, there is no need for a legal regime preventing you from breaking the speed of light... physics does so. In the computer world, different rules apply.
In other words, if Microsoft controlled the browser market and required that HTML be formatted in a certain way, that would have as much power as a legal regime. True you could switch browsers and systems, but you can also break the law.
There is a VERY compelling arguement that the libertarian view, while beautiful in a Jeffersonian agrarian society, the realities of a connected world make regulation an important if less significant role. For example, in Jefferson's era, the government played a much bigger role in the people's lives if it chose to (despots were a real threat to a free society), in our era and in regards to an electronic world, the people writing the standards, software, and hardware designs have much more influence than the government. They essentially write the physicals of our virtual universe.
Alex
Re:RMS an embarassment? (Score:2)
I wouldn't consider "free software" to be a code word. He's gone to great lengths to explain what he means when he uses that term. However, when you're writing about larger issues, it's just not sensible to insert the definition of free software into your writing when the term itself will suffice.
Nathan Newman's fuzzy logic (Score:2)
Huh? Then why didn't the Los Angeles basin, which received by far the lion's share of this wealth, become Silicon Valley? To the best of my knowledge, Lockheed was the only government contractor doing any work in the Bay Area. Most historians agree that world class universities like Stanford and U.C. Berkelely, and their outstanding graduates, have much more to do with the success of the Silcon Valley than government contracts.
If there is no public funding for its development, it becomes unclear who will contribute to open-source development. Or rather, it is easy to suspect that those who contribute will be heavily self-interested actors pushing those "open standards" in directions that benefit their for-profit endeavors tied to its standards.
To date, this has NOT been true. What makes Nathan think this will change?
If there is no public funding for its development, it becomes unclear who will contribute to open-source development.
God knows Sendmail, BIND, Linux, GNU, etc. wouldn't exist now if they hadn't received public funding! Perhaps the same people that have always contributed to open source will continue to do so. If Nathan is incapable of understanding their motives, perhaps he shouldn't be trying to pass himself off as an expert on open source.
Open-source proponents like Eric Raymond uphold the banner of the "right to fork" standards
No, they support the right to fork code, which is strongly discouraged by social pressures, not law. Source != standards.
which is great for techie programmers looking for cool code, but can really suck for consumers looking for standards that are compatible across the board (something that Microsoft, whatever the failings of its standard, delivers for its customers)
Which is why 100% of applications written for NT4.0 run just fine under Win2K, right? Bwahahahah...
If public policy does not promote compatible standards that serve public needs -- not particular corporate interests -- we are likely to see the whole open-source movement rapidly fragment into an incompatible stew of standards and products that deliver little but confusion to the public.
Partially correct -- public policy SHOULD support open standards. But to date, the governments efforts to do this have been dismal failures. (Anybody remember the ISO/OSI communications protocols? Ada? GOSIP? Does anybody use the POSIX "compliant" APIs supposedly incorporated into NT? Anybody out there ever tried reading the ISO specifications and understanding them, let alone implementing them? So far the IETF methodology has been by far the most successful in creating interoperable standards that people actually use, and it's done this with a minimum of government interference (albeit with government funding).
Re:Laissez-Faire (Score:2)
Yes! Thank you! Finally some acknowledgment that academic scientists funded by the United States government created the Internet. I'm opposed to mindless statism but I'm also opposed to mindless anti-statism. Without federal funding there never, ever, would have been anything like the Internet. Some Internet libertarians seem to want to say "okay, I'll take this thing you created for me but I won't give anything back and I'll do what ever I want with it and I'll fight you if you don't like it." Argh.
Thats beacuse the debate isn't about Open Source (Score:2)
Classic conservative vs. liberal ideology (Score:2)
Personally, I find Raymond's viewpoint to be much closer to reality, and I beleive the fall of comunism proves that the cynical view of human nature is closer to the truth. It may be tempting to think that the one government should be to mold the economic system to acheive the greatest common good, but giving them the power to do almost always backfires; exceptions are made to benefit big campaign contributors (like the banking and real estate industries in the 80's) NOT the people as a whole.
Much as we'd all like to see Micro$oft get spanked, we fear a government that is brazen enough to do so. It should be enough for the government to merely insist that Micro$oft play nice. Also, does it not strike anyone as hypocritcial that on the one hand, the government is attacking Micro$oft as an illegal monopoly, while on the other hand, it is contributing literally billions of dollars to license their software and to defend Micro$oft's intellectual property rights? Wouldn't the easiest sanctions to enforce be to simple declare a moratorium on government purchases from MS and of prosecuting anyone for pirating MS software? In my mind, there should be a constitutional ammendment that states that those that blatantly violate the laws of society should not be subject to protection by the same laws they are flaunting while they do so... in simple terms, if I shoot the person stealing my car, his family shouldn't be allowed to sue me for his injuries.
Re:Raymond is getting schooled (Score:3)
All I can say is "why?" Lessig gives no reason laws are needed, in fact he has nothing to say about the open source movement at all.
You should read Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He gives very good reasons why regulation is needed. I think one of the most obvious reasons is that regulation always exists, regardless of what we may want. It's just a question of who is calling the shots. As he said, "'no regulation' is not on the table."
The internet was born with the help of regulation. It flourished with the help of regulation. The main danger to it now is the lack of (proper) regulation of new networks (cable, etc).
Lessig's point is that we need to make sure the government is implementing the right kinds of regulation in order to keep the Net open and available to all. If we don't wake up and start participating in the debate and making our voices heard in Washington, we'll continue to have the various industries calling the shots since they'll be the only ones talking to our government. We'll continue to end up with bad regulation like the DMCA and UCITA.
Re:RMS an embarassment? (Score:2)
It's plain english. Not Supermarket Advertising English.
Ignore the government? Just try.... (Score:2)
"Government? We don't need any. We'll grow our own stuff, get high a lot, live in a separate hippy economy, we won't be bothering anyone. Mainstream society is too corrupt to deal with. Yep, that's the ticket"
I have friends whose parents lived on communes and it sounds like it *was fun* - for awhile. Then two things happened. The drug trade became big business and private concerns began to take an interest in controlling it. Pretty soon "informal norms" didn't count for much against gun toting entrepenurial thugs. And the majority of americans decided they didn't like hippies and therefore didn't like their choice of recreational substances. Pretty soon the counter-culture was caught between being sent to the Rock and a lot of hard folks.
I'd suggest that Open Source enthusiasts ought to learn from the results of that last "revolution." If we want to be "left alone" we'd better get involved in the political process. Right now the RIAA is busy trying to broad brush the OS community as nothing but a bunch of snotty-nosed smart-aleck thieves. Ask yourself what you've done lately to counter that impression.
[And yes, I know this analogy is a bit of a reach. But the parallels are just strong enough to be kind of spooky, don't ya think?]
Re:Geek neolibertarianism (Score:2)
But, that has a problem in a world of increasing population.
Ideally we'd have a 'foo' standard, where 'foo' existed in relationship to the number of people, and where 'foo' was directly consumable, so that cashing in your cash and getting 'foo' did you some good. But we'd also need something where creating 'foo' was as hard to make as you'd expect, given the trade-in value of 'foo' to cash. That way counterfitters would work for the government, creating more 'foo', and thus more value.
But that gets into the idea of work units, and other fairly unworkable ideas.
Some history (Score:2)
Re:Raymond is getting schooled (Score:2)
But I still have yet to see a convincing argument for regulating open source itself,
This depends on what you mean by regulation. One of the things that's been discussed is making sure our government favors open source over closed source software. This really isn't a bad thing. Having complete and open access to the source, along with the ability to modify that source is something that makes OSS inherently more valuable than closed source software. It makes sense that the government should consider this a desired feature of the software it uses. It doesn't make sense to keep using software that sells for very high prices when there is free software that can do nearly everything that the commercial software does, and in some cases even more, with the added perqs of being free or very inexpensive as well as having the source available. Instead of government purchasers having to justify not purchasing a Microsoft product, they should really have to justify their choice to purchase an MS product over an open source product.
The money saved on licensing fees would be enormous. This money could be used for support costs (which they have with closed source products anyway), as well as for beefing up security (which is sorely lacking), probably with a fair amount left over.
That said, let me get to the more important reason. If we're going to keep moving forward with new ideas and new implementations, we need a foundation we can build on. Microsoft is not that foundation. We need software that is open and readily available to anyone that wants it. We need access to the code that is the foundation that new ideas will be built upon. It only makes sense that our government should promote this goal as best it can. OSS will not be the right choice in every situation, but it should be used in every situation in which it will suffice. The government needs to lead the way in implementing OSS as a foundation and a philosophy. Closed source has helped to challenge OSS and make it better, but closed source software is not a good foundation to lock ourselves into, simply because we, as a country, do not have any real control over it and it does not serve our interests first and foremost. OSS is available to us. It is inexpensive. It offers us vastly greater control and freedom. It is the sensible choice.
Re:ESR and Ayn Rand, comment by an actual Objectiv (Score:2)
In fact, I am so annoyed at running into so many Ayn Rand phreaks, that I am thinking of setting up a web site to compare many other ism philosophies and movements that say they promote thinking and intellectual evolution, such as environmentalism, punk, goth, freemason, ad infinitum idealogies as compared to objectivism.
Re:the government doesn't make anything possible (Score:2)
The natural state of things for large groups of people (whether political parties or corporations) is _unenlightened_ or raw self-interest, and in fact as we all know perfectly well, for corporations enlightened self-interest is against the law- they have 'fiduciary duty' to cut straight to the richest vein of self-interest and to hell with enlightenment. This, for entities (corporations) that already will have a strong bias towards cruder self-interest in the first place.
This is where you and where Randroids err most grieviously- you, and they, make fine noises about enlightened self-interest, but the rules end up being made by mobs, and there's nothing enlightened about that!
The only purpose of government is to cope with the problems of faction- which is why we in the US are a republic and why we're set up a certain way (re-read Federalist #10 pleeease). Nothing in the ESRian randite mondo-libertarian approach makes the slightest effort to cope with this- instead it's assumed that the biggest factions will be the most enlightened, or something. Huh? I'm not sure how anybody would draw _that_ conclusion, but it seems central to the uber-techno-libertarian theme, and this is such a disturbingly strange conclusion that it makes me glad we do have a government that can block these loonies from gaining power :)
How many of you _really_ think that technically trained computer geeks are a superior race _better_ qualified to judge things and make decisions than any other faction? I keep getting this sense of "Down with government- _our_ way should rule, and we will be in control!" from the technolibertarians. It is not a little frightening... unless, I suppose, you believe we are a superior race :P
Re:Geek neolibertarianism (Score:2)
Re:RMS vs the rest (Score:2)
If you mean that there's now plenty of momentum behind the OSS movement, you're right. However, I think a lot of users only care about the technical superiority of GNU/Linux for some purposes. As soon as something technically better comes along, people will use it even if it is non-free. I know many Linux users. However, very few of them don't have a copy of Windows around to use when it suits them better. Few of them are at all bothered by, say, the fact that there's no good free compressed video format. Most will quite happily use StarOffice or WordPerfect, without caring that they are non-free. In this sense, we urgently need users to start caring about freedom above and beyond short-term technical superiority. It's currently possible to have a useful general-purpose computer without using any non-free software, but if people don't start caring about this then that fact is in danger of being steamrollered by the appearance of non-free de-facto standards.
In this sense, I think RMS's role as full-time evangelist is now more important than ever. Can you imagine how much less the message would spread if left to people like Bruce Perens and Alan Cox, who whilst being brilliant and generous with their time, understandably don't want to give up their lives in the way RMS has?
Re:ESR is not my favorate (Score:2)
Just to make it clear. You're not attributing those remarks to ESR are you? Beyond propagandized views, there are real idealogical reasons for believing in the right of arms, based on a few value judgements. There are, in fact, compelling arguments on both sides - which is why the issue is so controversial. The homophobia comment, I think, is a stereotype pertaining to "right wing nuts". Those claiming to adhere to libertarianism, I think, may or may not agree with it, but would uphold the individual rights of the homosexual because they engage in acts between two consenting individuals.
Not being one to judge someone as per association, I would have to say this is all suppositon. I would, however, ask for further evidence regarding these statements if you were attributing these comments to ESR.
Re:RMS an embarassment? (Score:2)
access to information". Please elaborate on this, because I have no idea what you are saying
because this is a very general statement.
Well, I was making an inference from RMS's writings, but OK.
From a 1986 speech:
Because any
field of knowledge advance most when people can build on the work of others, but ownership of
information is explicitly designed to prevent anyone else to doing that. If people could build on other people's work, then the ownership would become unclear, so they make sure each new entry
to the field has to start from the beginning, and thus they greatly slow down the advance of the
field.
And from the following Q&A session:
Q:
So it boils down to ownership of information. Do you think there are any instances where, you
opinion, it's right to own information?
A:
With information that's not generally useful, or is of a personal nature, I would say it's OK. In
other words not information about how to do things, but information about what you intend
to do. Information whose only value to others is speculative, that is they can take some money
away from you, but they can't actually create anything with it. It's perfectly reasonable I'd say
to keep that sort of thing secret and controlled. But in terms of creative information,
information that people can use or enjoy, and that will be used and enjoyed more the more
people who have it, always we should encourage the copying.
From the GNU Manifesto:
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is
usually used to make their lives more difficult.
Of course, when I used "access" I misspoke myself. I don't have to trouble myself to make any information available to you, so it is not normally evil in every case to withold information. However when I do release information to you, I should have no right to encumber your ability to make creative and productive use of that information. This is true no matter what means I attempt to employ: either legally by licensing restrictions, or practically by delivering it soley in forms which have limited utility (e.g. object code).
Perhaps I should have said: "Put simply, he believes that restricting the use and sharing of information by others is wrong."
Oh, well no matter. These ideas are notoriously difficult to state precisely and accurately.
Why you're wrong about the Internet (Score:2)
Logical rigor (or lack thereof) (Score:2)
This is simply polemic. It ignores the universe of possibilities in between which is the sphere of most moral issues.
The problem with Rand is not that here conclusions are necessarily wrong, but that her logic is invalid. Of course, the same can be said of any philosopher who has tried to create a comprehensive system of beliefs; nobody really has been able to put a practical system for living your life into a mathematically rigorous system of axioms. There's always more than a little bit of handwaving and wishful thinking.
So in that Objectivists are not particularly culpable, but they are particularly guilty of waving the standard of axiomatic logical rigor in the faces of others while supporting their own logically tenuous positions with blatant appeals to emotion and egotism.
It is a reassertion of the right to life, the right to the product of your own mind and hands, and the right to seek your own happiness. It is an assertion that we have a right to be free from coercion, that no one has the right to initiate force against another.
OK, so how does this follow from assumptions 1, 2 and 3? In fact, it directly constradicts #3. Every objectivist I've ever talked with says its wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread from a rich man. Now that may be true, but the Objectivists arguments put forth all amount to concluding that choosing to starve rather than steal is not altruistic, or in this case stealing the bread would lead to death and starvation would lead to life. Clearly this is an absurdity (in the logical sense), and so this proposition is inconsistent with the stated assumptions.
Objectivism is not as it purports to be a rigorous analytical framework with which to guide one's life, but a collection of polemics to justify a set of preexisting beliefs that may, or may not be true.