Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Could Learn from Capitalism
ukhackster writes to tell us that Sun's Simon Phipps challenged many open source ideals at a recent open source conference in London. Urging the open source community to look to the lessons of capitalism, Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest" and denounced the perceived legal issues surrounding open source. From the article: "Phipps took time out to take a swipe at some of the exhibitors at the conference who were selling professional advice on negotiating the open source 'legal minefield'. 'I disagree with those who say who say open source is a legal minefield,' he said as he threw from the stage a brochure from one firm of lawyers. 'If you think open source is a minefield you're doing it wrong.'"
Whether FOSS is "capitalist" or "communist" or "volunteerist" is completely irrelevant, and quite frankly I think anyone who constantly tries to hammer the FOSS square peg into one of those round holes is doing so for their own purposes.
FOSS is what it is. In some ways, it's capitalist, in others, it's communist, in others, it's volunteerist. That's really the beauty of the movement; you get out of it what you want to get out of it, and you put into it what you want to put into it.
Maybe that's anarchy. Or maybe that's just another way of saying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The question is, why does it matter?
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Any good capitalist will trumpet their value based on supply and demand. Then when someone decides to give something away they'll cry like babies. Remember the banks suing the credit unions.
Yes absoluetly people have the right to make free software. And as long as dedicated hobbyists are willing to give it away for the sake of personal satisfaction and being able to control their tools, the corporate guys are going to have to work harder.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Last time I checked, many open source people were pretty capitalistic. I guess the rumor keeps floating around that everybody's a commie or something, but it simply isn't true. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and therefore I love open source.
Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest"
When you really get down to it, there's no difference. People "volunteer" because they get something out of it, whether it be financial, utility, entertainment, or the satisfaction of simply "making the world a better place."
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
...does not qualify as directed self-interest?
The same applies to companies - Sun didn't make OO.org open-source out of the goodness of its heart; it did so to strike back at Microsoft.
There shouldn't be the firm line Phipps draws between volunteerism and "directed self-interest" - they're interelated. They always have been. They probably always will be.
In fact I said and routinely say nothing of the sort. Matt Asay does a fine job of summarising the main points I made, which you will note do not include claiming "open source could learn from capitalism". In fact I wonder if the other reporter was even at the same event. Reading through the whole thread here I'm amazed that people feel they can come to any conclusions about what I think based on an intentionally provocative and ill-informed article by a ZDNet reporter who badly summarises the thrust of my keynote in reported speech apparently intended to garner Slashdot coverage.
And I disagree with your outdated analysis of Sun, naturally.
I'm sorry, I should have explained my point when I posted. Your view, I believe, is too extreme, and I offered a corresponding extreme that I do not actually believe. I think a nice middle ground is actually reality, and that both points of view are expressed by that middle ground.
:)
1) How do our cells compete to distribute resources?
An interesting essay proposes that cells use competition as a means to determine which functions, which organs, which tissues, and what features are developed. Otherwise we would be a blob of millions of identical undifferentiated cells with identical genes. Or a cancer, if you like. Certain cells, like bone, need calcium more than certain cells need lipids, like fat, or protien, like muscles. This competition for resources would allow different cells to develop differently, in a way reducing competition by specializing into different cells with different requirements, with the end results that you have a heart and bones and blood and fat and muscle.
2) Why do cells die when told to?
Some forms of cell death are critical to development of features such as fingers, in which the spaces between fingers die and fall away. It is a form of survival enhancement in the same way kin selection selects for altruistic behavior. A creature born with a functional heart, because certain nerves and muscles and fats died when told to, survived while a creature born without a functional heart died.
3) Cells that only compete have a name: cancer
That is entirely too simplistic. Cancer is many things, not only competing. Cancer cells have to cooperate to create the necessary environment necessary for cancer growth, such as the development of additional blood vessels, supports, and metastasizing. Cancer cells are like normal cells, but more so
4) One flora or fauna overwhelming the rest is the end result of competition, not cooperation!
The fact is that when there is multiple flora or fauna competing, no single flora or fauna can overwhelm the system because they keep each other in check. If they did not keep each other in check, if they did not compete but instead gave up, then you get gastrointestinal infections and other diseases. As long as there is competition no one can overwhelm, by the very definition of competition.
5) People are not intrinisically motivated by competition.
So if I can offer proof of one individual intrinisically motivated by competition, your assertion is proven wrong. Here is my proof, and I use me, because I am a person and I am motivated by competition. I like knowing I am smarter, I like knowing I am right, and this is my reward for posting on Slashdot, in which moderators might see my brilliance and mod me up for other people to see my posts and read my words. I compete with other Slashdot posters for moderation points.
6) There is no proof that competition motivates people to greater heights. There is no proof that in a cooperative environment people would get barely enough to survive. Rather than addressing my legitimate points, you are just making shit up.
Again I apologize, I should have made it more clear I was being facetious, sarcastic, and mocking. My real point is lost in the noise, I was trying to point out that competition and cooperation both are needed. Cooperation is a valid survival and success strategy. Two people together may survive where two people competing might not. However two people competing may achieve more than two people cooperating because the reward and competition incites more out of the people. I think we need both.
I was never trying to invalidate you, merely show you as being hyperbolic. Cooperation is necessary. So is competition.
You ask a serious question: "Why do corporations never use internal competition between divisions"?
My answer, "Because cooperation is the more successful strategy in
GPL Deconstructed
This guy wasn't telling open source people to become more capitalist, he was telling capitalist people to do more open source. What he said was to stop thinking of open source as volunteerism and start thinking of it as self-interest -- that is, don't release source because it makes you feel good, release source because it's in your best interest.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!