Slashdot Mirror
Oregon's Governor Backs Open Source Development
Colonel Panic writes "Oregon's Governor Ted Kulongoski is backing a plan to establish an Open Technology Center in Beaverton (also home to the OSDL). The purpose of the center will be to boost the adoption of open technology among developers and industries. Given that the Portland area hosts OSCON and is the home to the OSDL and now Linus, is Portland becoming the center for Open Source development in the US?"
Since I live in Portland, this could be good for future prospects in the employment-in-interesting-jobs arena.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
There are lots of voluntary and free programs in the US and have been since its inception. How have soup kitchens, the scouting program, and church service projects effected the US economy? Why should we expect open source software to have any different effect?
First of all, Randal Schwartz was arrested because he was cracking passwords. The fact that he was the system administrator is irrelevant to the discussion. He was told not to do it, and he did it anyway.
Yeah, Intel had a somewhat contradictory set of policies. On the one hand, he was charged with improving network security. On the other, he was told he couldn't do certain things. Where Randal went wrong was when he saw that the policies were contradictory and went ahead anyway. There is always another option which won't get you in trouble: stop what you're fucking doing, and get clarification from management. Being an arrogant ass, he didn't, and so he was arrested.
If your boss says: "Yes, sure, release that code as GPL", but your contract says: "All code is propery of The Company(TM)", then your legal position is unclear, which is very, very bad.
In such a situation, you get written clarification, or you quit your job. You do not break the law and then whine when you are sent to jail.
Then your cell-mate will say: "I like this one. He's cute!", and you will say "Why did I ever move to Oregon!!! !!!". Not good. Not good at all.
You're pulling this out of your ass. I work in the Portland area as a software developer and have never heard of anything like what you are inventing here, except for the case of Randal Schwartz, which was a pretty clear-cut case of misuse of computer resources. The guy knew the law, he broke it, he went to jail. Tough shit.
He could have simply gone to his employer and said "I cannot carry out my job function under this contradictory set of requirements. I need clarification."
A HUGE library of public domain mathematical software, mostly FORTRAN, was written by US Gov. researchers over the years, for example in use in climatology.
The affordability of my (academic) research depends entirely on the government's public domain coding policies stretching back as long as computers and acadamia have mixed.
Personal Telco Project
I don't believe there is any merit to this simplistic view of economics, which seems so prevalent on Slashdot. For example: "Digital music files can be reproduced ad infinitum, are, therefore, without value, and thus can be traded freely with no impact to the recording industry."
None of the ingredients in a basic cake are particularly scarce. So, once the baker has sold his first 1000 cakes, he can bake more. This, and the fact that just about anyone can bake a cake, is why a basic cake costs so little. If there were only those 1000 cakes in the world, they would cost much more. This is the application of scarcity.
A better analogy would be to compare a (good) programmer and his source code with an experienced cake decorator. You can buy a sheet cake for $50, but a fancy wedding cake could cost you hundreds, I suppose. You're paying for the decorator's service, his skills. Similarly, source code, as little more than a text file, is in some sense worthless. However, not just anyone could have written the code to do what that code does, in just the way it does it. When you pay the programmer to write it, you're paying for his knowledge and experience.
Imagine a machine that could duplicate any wedding cake you place in it at
essentially no cost. The initial cake might cost $1,000,000 worth of time,
effort, facilities, and raw materials, but once the initial cake exists, an
infinite number of identical cakes can be produced for no additional cost.
Also assume that just about anyone who wants one, can easily acquire one of
these machines.
The only way the master cake decorator can make money selling cakes is if
it is illegal to duplicate wedding cakes with this ubiquitous machine. If no
such laws exist or the laws are unenforced, then the master cake decorator
must instead earn a living not selling cakes, but performing the service of
customizing cakes for people who don't want the standard cake and are willing
to pay him to make the desired changes. The master cake decorator no longer
produces a good in the traditional sense, but instead performs a service.
Sure, anyone can write names on a cake, but to some people it will be worth it
to pay someone to have it done well.
The only difference between the above ficticious cake scenario and the
software industry is that poorly written names on cakes don't actually have
the potential to make the cake worthless/inettible while poorly customized software
can make the software worthless/unusable.
*sigh* back to work...
I am not sure if you are trolling or espouse this view held surprisingly often.
I am a consultant, and I specialize in open source software. Open source, from a hobbiest's view may be antithetical from the idea of compensation, but from a professional's view, it just represents a different model for distributing the work that needs to be done and the compensation therefore.
Also note that with open source, at least among professionals, compensation is often in near direct purportion to productivity, while the curve for proprietary software is anything but linear (if you sell twice as many copies of the code than your competitors you make more than twice as much, and your software need not take twice as much work to make).
Open source will help everyone out. But I don;t really see it being Oregon-specific. Open source is something that is difficult to export efficiently because it is based on services, and in the services market, local parties have a serious advantage. Though for hosted solutions and a few other areas location doesn't matter.
On the other hand, freeing up licensing fees for software may allow for better computer networks in schools, etc.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yes, it was a frightening miscarriage of justice and common sense. Washington County simply did the bidding of Intel (its largest employer). The irony of Washington County now becoming a center for free software is not appreciated widely enough.
Yeah, Intel had a somewhat contradictory set of policies. On the one hand, he was charged with improving network security. On the other, he was told he couldn't do certain things. Where Randal went wrong was when he saw that the policies were contradictory and went ahead anyway. There is always another option which won't get you in trouble: stop what you're fucking doing, and get clarification from management. Being an arrogant ass, he didn't, and so he was arrested.
Being an arrogant ass shouldn't be illegal. What you're saying is, "Yes, parent poster, the law was wrong to put him in jail, therefore it was his fault for not recognizing that potentiality, and violating the stupid law."
The point isn't whether the law, as it stood (which was NOT clear until after the trial), made what he did a crime, it's whether that's a good and intelligent law. It isn't.
In such a situation, you get written clarification, or you quit your job. You do not break the law and then whine when you are sent to jail.
Way to miss the whole point. The point is that the system is unmoral/disagreeable/anti-the-little-guy/whatever related adjective you prefer. Your reply blames the victim and does nothing to address the problem. It's like saying (during the witch trial eras), "Well, that's what you get for having a birthmark and a pet black cat!"
What Randal did shouldn't have landed him in jail, but it did. He probably shouldn't have done it even if it was completely legal, but that doesn't mean he should be imprisoned for it!