Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly on Free vs. Open
Pudding Yeti writes "O'Reilly is running an article entitled Whence the Source: Untangling the Open
Source/Free Software Debate, which seeks to, well, untangle the free/open debate. It even seems balanced. I liked it. Maybe others will, too. "
I mean they should, RMS has been a pain in the butt in the beginning. Have you heard his speeches in the ORA presentations?
The original purpose of IP was to promote the development of art. The problem is, (most) software does not fall under the category of art. Business software is very quickly becoming absolutely necessary for large segments of society.
The amount of control IP laws give to IP owners is too great, when said owners have everyone on earth as a customer.
oh, you mean the "And that Tim O'Reilly sitting over there is a leech on society and the oxygen we all must breathe" comments? yeah, they would piss me off too.
Without the guaranteed IP protection, the firm may not even bother to invest in research for a cure for AIDS.
He seemed to be right on the money about Stallman's beliefs, although he obviously didn't agree with them.
The thing that strikes me is that RMS looks at Microsoft as being irrelevant or unimportant, while demonizing O'reilly. In truth, O'Reilly has done alot for the movement. So what if he keeps a copyright on his books, he's allowed. MS on the otherhand is looking for ways to proprietarize everything to lock us out (according the the Halloween documents).
The entire open source movement seems to be devolving into an absurd shouting match over semantics, terms, definitions, and minutae. Know your enemy - all of this in-fighting is simply helping them.
Here's is some history - the Soviet Union and Communist China may have well taken over the free world if they could have overcome some petty differences. A rift formed between the two over what may be deemed minutae compared to the larger struggle with the west. The United States capitalized on the divisions between the two powers and hence crippled the communist world. The rest is history.
Free vs. Open is a non-debate. Get on with your movement!
The one thing that is rarely mentioned in these types of articles is the unix wars that were fought in the 80's and the message of RMS during those times. After At&T realized that it might have let the golden goose get away, it fought long and hard to regain control of Unix. Throw IBM, DEC, Sun, and others into the fray, and all hell breaks loose. Proprietary OS's combined with competing "standards" based on the selfish agendas of different companies totally fragmented Unix.
Throughout these wars, RMS message to the masses via the FSF made a lot of sense. Get the damn software (and so-called "standards") into the hands of programmers. It was a very enlightening vision during those chaotic times. I for one will not forget what RMS did for the field of computing. I will also still remember and ponder his message.
Whenever RS was referenced, or the fsf, words like "utopic" and "romantic" popped up. Linux and GNU were once utopic projects!
Also, he doesnt show the clear diference between just Open Source, and free software. Take Java2.
Its Open Source. you can see it, you can tweak it, but when it comes to selling, the only able its Sun. They need you for a free workforce, and then they take all the cash.
You, the wanna be the next Bill Gates. They want to be millionaire!
eduardo
Information will always drift from a secret, hidden and possessed state to one of freedom and openness.
It comes down to the methodology used to speed up the process of freeing information. RMS represents the absolute end of the freedom spectrum. Unfortunately, absolutes do not exist in the universe. Everything occurs relative to everything else. ESR understands this, and stands somewhere in the middle and helps usher the information in the direction of freedom.
In the end, RMS is an absolute reference point that will never be fully achieved. ESR is the force propelling towards him. Both are useful in accomplishing the ultimate goal...freedom.
TheOrb40
there's two fairly major points i have this this article.
first, the article keeps talking about how "utopian" and "unrealistic" rms's vision is. rms once posted that people were always telling him, why not just accept that things are the way they are? well, he didn't accept them, he did something about them, and hey! things changed!
secondly, AT&T is praised for letting berkely students see the source code for AT&T unix, and so for inspiring BSD unix. well, they also fail to mention the way that the BSD groups were forced to re-invent many portions of the OS to get around the lawsuits AT&T had out on them! now isn't that a wonderful way to promote software development, sue anyone who tries to actually use the stuff you let them see...
Well,
GPL also creates the strongest community ties.
Combine it with ego-controlled decentrilized
development and you get the ultimate fun and
an _infrastrucutre_ building process.
Use LGPL to allow connecting apps to the infrustructure and take over the world.
Everything else is ilogical. So let's see:
GPL+Bazaar+LGPL = _free_infrustructure_
Free as in: _not_monopolisticaly_controlled_
or as in: _roaming_free_with_no_one_on_top_of_you
Now the media rants about GPL vs Bazaar,
RMS vs ESR etc, aren't these just dust in the eyes
Have a good laugh at them and get back to hacking.
Danny.
So, suddenly RMS is against copyright, even though the GPL is built on it? C'mon, calling it CopyLeft doesn't change it legally. And Open Source "on the other hand, is galvanized by the rather more utilitarian revelation that users are much less clueless than previously imagined" ??? So Open Source "on the other hand" is the one that is built on the idea of cooperation?
Scoville weeps that contributions someone makes to GPL'd software can't really be considered intellectual property since it can't be monopolized. Scoville is objecting to intellectual property law, which permits the GPL to stipulate that freely shared works should stay freely shared, no matter what somebody tacks on.
Ah, I see. The message is that because GNU goals are utopian, they can't occupy the moral high ground. That lot is being purchased by more "utilitarian" folk. Keep off the grass, everybody.
strong community ties? excuse me-it seems like everyday someone decides to fight about some stupid little thing
There are no known cures for Altzheimers Disease, and there probably never will be. Palliation (treating the symptoms somewhat) is the best we can hope for (in our lifetimes). In this disease, neurons and their connections are corrupted and destroyed through an incompletely understood process.
heh where were you when Sun made this announcement?A ZXNFAMUVFZE4GUBSSUXEUDO
http://sun.com/990302/scsl/;$sessionid$RYLVITYA
Well
RMS has done sometthing: emacs, gcc and better.
E.R. arguments are based on very few experience
against the real world.
I'd say they are weak arguments, the real
influential software packages have gone
a strong bench for at least 10 years, just
look at BSD, X11 and its children (apache,
perl)
ORA and ER are just trying to get midia and
corporate trust, this is realy a parasitic
behaviour, they are asking fot the profits
of years of rights fighting done by others.
Don't you believe me? Ok, so could you please aks
Tim why don't we have a X11R6 Xlib book?Or a
4.4BSD reprint? ok, we have lots of win95,
linux and NT, but if ORA does exist today
it is because it printed real(tm) Unix/X
books yesterday.
Take care, any support to ORA/Eric Raymond
today mean less GNU, BSD, X, and other not
so promoted software.
Today we see they killing the basis of
of linux in favour of Win*/Linux.
Tomorrow we can't guarantee this guy will
not kill Linux "because we got bad sales, but
win2000 is near opensource and selling well"
A good Citizen
Unlike the GPL, the LGPL isn't incompatible
with damn near everything.
Unlike the BSD licence, nobody can take LGPL
source and make it proprietary.
The LGPL combines the best of the GPL and BSD
license. It is good for both libraries and apps.
It lets free software and proprietary software
work together, with neither party getting abused.
did you leave OSI? coulda sworn it had something to do with distinguishing between free software and open source software.
are you straddling the fence or something?
The difference with medicine as compared to software, is that medicine is still a tangible good with real marginal cost per unit, in addition to the IP initial fixed cost. Software has a marginal cost near zero, so it tends towards freedom. (Although support does not)
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
Your posting, in particular your rhetorical question about "What good is the source' if I can't modify it?" is factually wrong.
Read the definition of Open Source:
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Your posting is factually wrong.
The Java2 License, also called the Sun Community License, does not fulfill the criteria for an Open Source License.
For more information, read
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
1. Free Redistribution
The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Sun requires royalties for the redistribution of modified versions of Java2.
You tell me how they regenerate the neurons which have been severly damaged by the neuritic plaques and then I will start to think about if you're "cure" is possible for Alzheimer's Disease.
Another issue is, by old age the amount of neurons that they originally had have been vastly pruned down for "efficiency." Damaging what neurons they've left leaves little room for insta-cures like your friend is talking about. Insta cures or monthly based treatment cures.
What your friend may be aluding to is neuronal regeneration, which is possible, but I doubt that a POS bio company has the answer. Try the Regents of the University of the California or some other large research institution that actually has the real brain power.
Biopsychology is my thang so don't try to pull the whool over my eyes and I just recently finished mylenating. If you don't know what that means don't bother replying.
Duke of URL - minus password
After this article I will not buy more O'reilly books. They not only bash RMS again, but want to reinvent the OpenSource.
WHO THE FUCK CARES!!???
May the best code win. But remember kids, worse is better!
Actually, I am a geek bioresearcher (university based, however). All of the pills currently on the market for Altzheimers dz are disappointing. If any drug company had anything of substance to treat it with (one time dose vs. monthly or daily or otherwise), they would surely bring it to market ASAP because there would be a lot of $$$ to be made (because there simply are no good drugs for Altzheimers). They don't care about the dosing interval. They can just increase the price per dose if fewer doses are required. Secondly, in order to know if the drug works, it must be tested in large human trials - typically Phase I, II, and III FDA trials that usually involve universities. If there were such a drug that actually worked, I don't see how it could be a secret.
That, I do not know. The new name is more acceptable to business persons, but probably less capable to convey to notion of freedom (See "open source software" or "free software"? for RMS's explanation.) That was the standard answer. But what is the real story behind all these? We shall soon see. My opinion is that ESR is perfectly happy to trade his mother if he could get his picture on the cover of Fortune magazine. Not long ago, he was mostly known for the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" article; before you know it, he gives interviews portraying himself as a spectacular hacker (!) and referring to Linuxers as "his people". Implying, of course, that he is a leader. His recent accomplishments was to re-write history and overshadow the work of FSF. Enough about Eric. The future will show the real goals of Open Source;
What you said... I personally owe RMS a debt of gratitude for what I am able to to w/ computers today (and, of course, countless others who have contributed Free software to the community). Whenever, I hear his ideas *first hand*, without the grapevine intervening, he make much sense. I am VERY thankful for the FSF, and all they've done (and I dropped some cash into the bowl at LinuxWorld to reflect that :)
We agree about FSF's contribution to unix. Linux, freeBSD, Solaris, etc., all
nowdays carry plenty of GNU code. I must, however, take the opposite
position about O'Reilly & Associates. The GNU generation concept was largely successful because it is based on the notion of sharing. When I
recently spend the whole month of December writing emacs code, I did it because I realized, after years of using free-software, that it is in my
self-interest to contribute to this community, to give something back in order
for the system to continue to provide me with benefits. Understand, I
am a selfish person; no-way I will do things for the benefit of others. And I figured, if I did not contribute and others do also do contribute, this
wonderful system of sharing will collapse. Sharing is also reflected in the GPL, you cannot just sell your software, you must also share.
O'Reilly collected millions from the efforts of the free-software community. What did he share with us? Nothing. He is nothing except a "free-rider",
only taking, but not giving.
Hello,
,releasing and useing free software.
/usr/src/linux/include/linux
I found the article on the two models fairly interesting and thought a would throw some spare change in the ring .
1) I love the idea of creating
2) I think it should be the authors descision on the copyright of the code.
3) I hate the GPL because of the way it takes away the authors right to the code.
3a) I hate he way GPL damages code reuse.
Example the file apm_bios.h in
is covered by the generic GPL so anything includeing this file is now owned by FSF.
3b) Consider the linux/module argument. Does
this mean 4Front technoogy is out of work?
4) I don't not like total Public domain software because I think the original author should get credit for her/his work.
5) I personally support A BSDish type copyright that states that the copyright must be maintained but the code may be sold,used and abused.
6) I think a recent comment on communism was an interesting choice. Conseder that one of the tenants of communisum was public ownership of all property.
7) RMS view of the future makes me sick. He said that he wanted all code to be free and people should charge for support. ummm. I hate performing service industry work. (thanks for creating XYZ now go answer tech support calls for $5.25 an hour.)
8) I think if software companies are going to run open source devlopments the devlopers (free labor here) should have certain guarnties from the companies about the avalibility of the code. Ergo
that should always leave the last public copy avaliable etc. Also any patents descending from such work should revert to the original author of the idea.
9) In summary "Give credit where credit is due"
10) And don't try to take my source code away for your utopian ideas.
Name withheld to avoid the fanatic respose flames.
Spelling errors are a mistake and I apologize for them.
That is right, here are the dates of the first
BSD releases:
1983 4.2BSD
1986 4.3BSD
1988 4.3Tahoe
etc.
I think there was a 4.1 realese that was internal
to the university and never distributed.
These earliest releases were during the 80's
1. Consider the GPL as the tool for building
infrustructure. Monopolies are no good at this.
2.Learn more about communism - it was actually
officially called _totalitarism_. It simply means
"total monopol of the government". Forget about
"public" property. It never existed - everithing
(including people) was property of a ruling cast.
Only cast members could make decisions...
Every time you hear abot socialism or communism
just think "monopolism at its extereme" !!!
3a) From /usr/include/linux/apm_bios.h:
* Include file for the interface to an APM BIOS
* Copyright 1994-1998 Stephen Rothwell (Stephen.Rothwell@canb.auug.org.au)"
FSF is not the copyright holder of that file. Even if it was, ownership can not carry over from one work to another.
3b) The Linux/module argument does not take away 4front's right to their code. It takes away (if indeed it does) their right to the Linux code.
7) Just because all software is free does not mean that no software needs to be written. You can still be paid to write programs.
8) Which the GPL ensures.
9) Common decency and should not have to be forced by the license.
10) No-one can, if you don't allow it.
1) I see no reason why we must consider all software companies as monopolies. If you meant ust the LGPL to build infrustructure sure. It is not as bad as GPL (I don't dislike it as much) but it still takes away some of your rights on source control. (as the orginal programmer.)
2) Go back to school. communism is NOT totalitarism. good people educated in America. The USSR had a totalitarism goverment also known as stalinism. It was based off the idea that in order to reach a communist economical model the poltical model would first be a totalitarism goverment and the revert to a democracy with a communist economic system. As opposed to america that started with a Represenative Democracy/capitilist system and has moved toward a Represenative Democracy/Socialist system. The problem in the USSR was that once a totalitarism goverment was installed power no longer flowed from the bottom up and the people at the top were not going to let go of the power. Communism is a wonderful model of a way to run an economic system but it fails in real life because of greed. The GPL is also a wonderful model that tries to elimnate greed not through trust of faith as in a Public Domain model but through a regulated and imperal way. The problem in my view is the imperal way of preventing "profit mongering" makes the universal acceptance of GPL unlikely if not impossible. To but it more direct and blunt. I have people to support and I can not do it on 5.25 an hour. And if all software is free people are not going to pay good coin for devlopers. I also don't like to give code away to organizations how will use it to futher there own goals.
aka FSF. (A goverment funded group through grants.)
To really call it like I see it. If RSM wants to impress me he can et off the public dole and get his ass a real job. Then lets see what his opion is on Free work, and giving all rights to FSF.
My father taught me that "Never fault a person for doing an honest days work." Well RMS, lets see the work. You are living off my wages damn it. I demand as your employer for you to remove the GPL from all your code.
Once mad Programmer.
"I also don't like to give code away to organizations how will use it to futher there own goals. "
So don't! Making something GPL'd does not give any rights to FSF. If you want to contribute to software copyrighted by FSF, they want you to sign over the copyright of your code to them, since that will make it easier to defend the code in the case of a license violation.
"aka FSF. (A goverment funded group through grants.)"
According to the FSF web site most of their funds come from distributing free software. How much of their funding comes from government grants?
"And in order to pay them, you are going to have to sell your product."
You have to sell _a_ product. Software will effectively not be the product; sell something else.
If there is a demand for a product, that product will be produced. If there is no demand for a product it should not be produced. That would be a waste of the world's finite resources.
If people desperately want something they can team up and pay someone to produce it. Sure, some people might get the product for free, but those who wanted it wouldn't get it at all if they didn't pay. Besides, those who did order the product does not _have_ to share it.
Once a pool of free software is available, developing new software will be cheaper. Sure, programmers won't become billionaires, but where's the harm in that.
Hardly the first releases. I don't know if there was a 1BSD release, but the initial 2BSD release (for the PDP-11) should have been released earlier.
Actually, I'd say the entire concept of free software is quite socialistic. I think the problem is not other wrongly calling free software socialistic, but free software people wrongly being repulsed by the word socialistic. How anyone can be convinced that absolute capitalism is the one true way and be afraid of a word (socialistic) is beyond me. Free software is certainly not an embodiment of capitalism, and while its not consistant with many (imho false) examples of "socialism" like the USRR and China, free software IS socialist.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was about as socialist as the German National Socialist Party.
sorta like saying 'this whole abortion debate
is a non-issue, its just bickering about
minutae and meaningless definitions (semantics)'
i dont know, maybe you mean "there are more important things to worry about"
but thats a whole different ballgame than saying its
'all about semantics and minutae'
(Note: I am using the term "OSS" here to mean the general concept of open source software, i.e., software for which the source code is freely available, usable, and modifiable.)
RMS's beliefs, as embodied by the FSF, are a sort of "Platonic ideal" of OSS, in which all software is truly liberated from the bounds of proprietary claim and can be modified and redistributed endlessly to suit. I think most of us can agree that, if this were a perfect world and we were all angels, this is the way software should be distributed.
However, the software business, for all the success that OSS has had recently, is still very much stuck in the proprietary mindset, afraid that revealing their source code will be a quick road to financial ruin. RMS' rhetoric does little to assauge their fears, however unjustified they may be. (Would Netscape have opened the source to their browser, if RMS' opinions on OSS were the only ones they could read? Perhaps...but it would have been a tougher choice for them to make.) True, RMS would argue that OSS doesn't need traditional business to "buy into" the idea...bur RMS doesn't have Micro$oft's marketing budget to spread his message.
What ESR has done is to create a "transitional" ideology, one that occupies the middle ground between the proprietary mindset and RMS' Platonic ideal of OSS. He's formulated the advantages of the OSS approach in terms that business people can understand, and provides the arguments and evidence they need to make OSS a less scary choice. The recent gains made by OSS in the business world are examples that show that what he's doing is working.
Now, RMS may grumble about the fact that, while OSS as espoused by ESR may be "free," it's not free enough. To this, I would say that, by and large, the software business is not ready to accept his concept of OSS. ESR is preparing a pathway by which, at some time in the future, RMS' ideology may be accepted by providers of software everywhere. But it'll be a long process, and perhaps a painful one, and, in the end, it may turn out that it's just not in our nature to be angels after all, and proprietary software will continue to survive in some form. And, along the way, another "transitional" ideology may be required to bridge the gap between ESR's "pragmatic" OSS and RMS' Platonic ideals. But that is for the future to decide.
Of course RMS sneers at the act of compromise; he's a revolutionary by nature, and would prefer to do battle with the proprietary software industry directly. But that's a battle he'd have a hard time winning; the present-day proprietary software companies are much better armed, in terms of both money and clout. ESR is trying to carry out a "revolution from within," gradually bringing the old stalwarts of proprietary software over to the OSS way of thinking. This seems to me the approach that will, in the long run, give RMS a bigger victory than he could accomplish alone.
I've made a lot of general statements here, trying to discuss general trends; of course, you can find exceptions to pretty much everything I say. But the fact remains, it's not necessarily a "battle" that's going on here, just a process. The two "sides" really aren't "sides"; ESR and OSI represent the first step in a process for which RMS and FSF represent the ultimate goal. We should continue to support the process, while never losing sight of this ultimate goal.
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Well, I only read parts it since I already knew where it was headed (it's on opensource.oreilly.com for goodness sake). I felt that they misrepresented GNU, FSF and Mr. Stallman.
It's about freedom. The writer missed that major point.
Also, can anyone give me an example of when free software is not open source software? Free software = more freedom.
Linux was around before "Open Source" or at least before it was tradmarked and turned into a buzzword. What was it then? Free Software. Plain & simple.
Was/is it sold? Yes, just look at Redhat. Free Software can be sold.
This article repeats the Big Lie (one that I've seen Raymond repeat, BTW) that somehow the free software movement pre-dates Richard Stallman. Stallman gets a lot of his legitimacy from having started the FSF back in 1983, and from his claims that he represents the original free software philosophy. I see these (false) statements about how free software is somehow pre-Stallman as nothing more than a blatant, explicit attempt by Stallman's critics to de-ligitimize his views by re-writing history so that he no longer represents the origins of free software. The people propagating this want to substitute in the Berkeley traditions as the origin of free software because those are much more friendly to the proprietary software developers these people are sucking up to.
Facts:
-- Stallman started at the MIT AI Lab in 1971, long before BSD.
-- The MIT AI Lab is widely recognized as the birthplace of hackerdom and the earliest free software traditions. This dates back to the 60's and even the 50's TMRC at MIT. Stallman is a direct heir to and participant in these earliest of traditions. The AI lab traditions pre-date Unix.
-- The original "Emacs commune" license pre-dates the UCB license. (The Emacs commune license was an early form of copyleft). Actually, I can't swear that this is accurate, but I believe that it is. (Stallman wrote the original Emacs in 1975, which was before the first BSD releases I believe).
The Sun "Community Source License" shows the flaws of Open Source. From a pure technical perspective, there is no reason why this license isn't free enough to give all the purported technical benefits of open development. So if that is your criteria for choosing a development/licensing model, how do you justify insisting on a license that is fully OSD compliant?
Look for more of this as businesses try to exploit the technical benefits of open development without giving their users true freedom.
There is no technical reason to insist on full compliance with the OSD, only a philosophical one. When people claim that they want open source code for purely technical reasons, it therefore should have been obvious that the OSD would soon be watered down.
The first version of Unix was written in 1970 after the collapse of the Multics project in 1969. The first BSD release was in 1979, though obviously it was probably in development before that.
It makes perfect sense to me. In RMS's eyes, Microsoft represents the "other side," of proprietary software companies, a side which is irrelevant to the Free Software community. On the other hand, O'Reilly claims to be part of the Free Software movement, so as such they disturb RMS.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Perhaps an example (not that I have any concrete ones) would be government-funded research - surely AIDS/SIDA research has benefitted in this way. If ever there were to be an "Open Medicine", government funding would probably have to be part of it. Of course, that would be "heresy" in today's climate, even if a desperately-needed cure for something was the promised (or even promising) end result .
--
--
=8^
This is a meaningless point. Is the government responsible for any products? I'm not sure I'd count public education or garbage collection as a "product".
The fact is the government is not the best at allocating resources.
And the private sector hits a home run every time? I think the private sector is highly overrated in the resource-allocation department. They're good, but they're not "insanely great".
I shudder to think of a world in which the government is responsible for all scientific innovation...
That wasn't what I was talking about anyway, though upon re-reading your earlier post, I now see that you were. There's room for straightahead for-profit activity, and there's room for activity that substitutes other criteria in lieu of (or alongside) profit.
I'll bet the USSR did OK in the scientific aspect; there were surely other factors, like a corrupt bureaucracy stemming from a totalitarian society, that played a role in any shortcomings. Let's see whether or not the E2K is vapor before we Westerners decide what goes on the tombstone.
I still see no reason why there can't be a government (or UN) funded corporation designed to fill a specific niche, like an AIDS cure, or a non-fossil-fuel "People's Car" (or non-car), or a public broadcasting entity. Something where the profit motive takes a back seat to other concerns, and where the corporation is kept on a short-enough leash to prevent something like the $8000 toilet seats the Pentagon and the private sector are famous for.
--
--
=8^
What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.
back in the 50's to a situation now where the common perception is
What's good for GM is good for the country.
There's a big difference there; there's the opening of a little hole where all sorts of nonsense can creep in, where if the CEO says that green is red, then - dammit! - green is red. The general amorality of business wins out over the concerns of the population at large. Yes, Microsoft is pretty much the apotheosis of bad behavior, but few businesses (large or small) are in line for sainthood. Just ask a dollar-a-day garment worker in Honduras. Or, closer to home, ask some rural residents who have had their local environment crapped on by the local industries. A corporation answers first and foremost to its shareholders; any obligations beyond that tend to be ignored, unless it benefits the corporation and shareholders. This is a scenario in which people are considered worthless, at least those who don't own large blocks of shares or don't purchase what the corporation is selling.
Does this observation warrant namecalling?
--
--
=8^
In general, I agree with you. I deliberately didn't use the word "evil" in my post; I used the word "amoral". If you're an employee, I'm sure you're doing the best job you can. If you're a boss, I'm sure the same is true. My point was that where there is conflict between what a corporation is doing and the "outside world", often the "outside world" loses out, and often there is government (and public) acquiescence to it.
So your medtech example needs to be broken up. Obviously the artificial pancreas is good, and I'll assume that the pricing of it is fair, because I don't want to get into a debate about the health-care system. There's no conflict there: people need that product, and the medtech company is selling it. My problem with it only comes in where (to drag a real-world example into this) that company, for example, closes down a factory in one location and moves to a place where the wages are much cheaper, and local government is giving them big tax breaks and is tacitly ignoring the excessive waste that the new factory will produce. It ends up a great deal for shareholders, but a bad one for the local economy, in that the tax base hasn't improved all that much, and there will eventually be a huge bill to pay environment-wise. My examples are taken from the maquilladora plants in Mexico and an old Proctor-Silex (IIRC) plant in a rural area of North Carolina - the Proctor-Silex plant relocated a few years later, BTW, having gotten an even sweeter deal elsewhere.
So yes, I do take it personally when some Red Dot Zealot implies that all capitalistic actions are somehow tainted.
But look at his last sentence: If you think a bunch of worthless people in the third world ( they have no net worth; they are, worthless) are more important that your corporations quarterly profits potential for the next ten years then you are no REAL Capitialist. I'm not sure how Red the person is. I'll drag out the the famous Dom Helder Camara quote here:
When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.
I'm the offspring of Republicans, and I consider myself to be one as well, a member of the party of Eisenhower (GM's Charles Wilson said "What's good for..." during his confirmation hearings for a post in Ike's Cabinet), Goldwater, Dirksen, and Javits. But when I became old enough to vote, I was so incensed at the thuggish Reagan Administration that I registered Democrat, and I've seen no reason to change it yet. One of the unfortunate circumstances resulting from the Reagan years is this deification of business and capitalism - anyone who dares to point out the flaws in The Way Things Are seems to get shouted down and called names (and even the word "liberal" has shamelessly been turned into a pejorative).
So, in my longwinded way, I support your putting-on of a suit and making artificial pancreases (and profits); my posts were not written to criticize that. But, at some point, a corporation is no longer hermetically sealed in the vacuum of dollars-and-cents-and-widgets and needs to be viewed in the larger landscape in which it is a part. The failure to do that is a major failing of contemporary capitalism, and it threatens to hurt us all in the long run.
--
--
=8^
Well, it's suffering a long-term embargo from a potentially great trading partner. It's suffering the pullout of Soviet investment. The new European and Canadian investments haven't made up for the fact that Cuba has two strikes against it.
Why is it that Cuban-American immigrants send millions of dollars back to their families.
The answer is a hell of a lot more complex than "Cuba's miserable"; grab some books on Cuban history that weren't written from an American Cold Warrior's POV.
Even the relatively poor here, in the US, are 10x better off than in Cuba.
That may be true now, but that would only be a relatively recent phenomenon. Cubans have (or had) much better healthcare than nearly all of the Western Hemisphere (the U.S. included). Better literacy rates (again including the U.S. in the comparison). I think for the average Cuban, the revolution was a success - life improved for them, in comparison to the faux-democracies that they lived under prior to Castro; those who are old enough to remember both Batista (and note that the current semi-capitalist reforms in areas like their tourist industry and currency have brought back some Batista-era dysfunction, like prostitution) and Castro would probably give Castro a big thumbs up.
As for those who escaped to Florida early on: note that those people were almost all light-skinned and fairly well off. Some had legitimate political reasons to run off - their lives may have been in danger. Most left because of greed, to be blunt about it. A greed that continues to show as the leaders of the exile community use Congress to further their agendas.
As for socialism being a "failure", I wish people would get off that high horse. Is capitalism a failure because Russia's economy stinks right now? Does capitalism suck because of the collapse of several Asian economies, or because of the impending disasters in Latin America? There are elements of socialism in economies from Stockholm to London to Tokyo to New York - it's not going away any time soon, especially since capitalism failed so miserably, from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok to Moscow to Quito :)
I ask you to diversify your sources of information; methinks, for one thing, that they have been a bit too America-centric. And maybe even worse than that...
--
--
=8^
>There are no known cures for Altzheimers Disease, and there probably never will be.
While technically correct, for the purposes of this discussion, "cure" can also mean something that will prevent the damage from occuring in the first place, or that prevents further damage from occuring. The issue is whether biotech research will be done, or done as effectively, if the profit motive is removed.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
longish rant ahead...it's been building up for a while inside of me, so i'm going to spew it out now.. :)
...etc...
Looking at ESR's philosophy & RMS' philosophy, it's hard to sway my opinion to one side or the other.... primarily because I don't believe there really is/should be a "side".
The primary point of this community is to _increase personal freedom_.
That goal is a profoundly moral goal, hence you can't ignore RMS. The problems I have with RMS' side of the philosophy is that he's in favour of an "all or nothing" approach - the GPL is structured very much in a way such that you have _COMPLETE_ freedom, even if this isn't economically justifiable in today's software industry realities (where revenues are measured in the billions).
ESR's side of the story justifies the practical good of the 'bazaar' model & having more personal freedom to modify the code. I'm in full agreement there. I do notice, however, that his followers seem to downplay the "Cathedral" approach to development as something that "just doesn't work". This is nonsense - many successful projects & works of art start with vision and planning - not just spontaneous "itches that need scratching".
Basically, the cathedral *AND* the bazaar are complementary models. They should co-exist. (I think esr would agree.. I hope, anyway)
Look at Linux, the GIMP, FreeBSD, Apache, Emacs, etc. All started as "cathedral"-like projects with a central programmer or programming team. Now that they've matured, the bazaar model makes a lot more sense for new features to be added, while Linus continues his "manager's role" of rejecting/accepting *major* new features that conform to his vision of Linux.
Put another way, the ability to MANAGE a project, such as Linus' authority to say "NO" to a dumb kernel feature, is what's really important to have a successful software project. No model can replace smart people. And this is where things get shaky... how many Linus' are out there? Not very many, I don't think.
Notice how that's a very different concept for most engineers. Management traditionally has been viewed as the pointy-haired incompetent type. My claim is that Linus represents the "new breed" of managers that are needed in the "open source community": technically competent people who (in a humble way) make effective decisions.
So, while I think the Bazaar model is great, the practical/pragmatic benefits of open source don't seem enough to make the world accept this model. One still needs management, one still needs vision, and one still needs a talented (and most likely well-paid) central team. Hey, that sounds A LOT like the current state of affairs in the software industry!
So, for me, the choice of "free software" vs. "proprietary" comes down to a moral choice. i.e. does "Sharing" help the industry? Well, duh, of course it does! I think the more enlightened companies like IBM and Sun are starting to see this: protecting IP is a way over-abused mechanism of ensuring competitive advantage, that doesn't really work all that well... creative imitation has essentially rendered proprietary code irrelevant, as Microsoft has shown again & again by copying the truly "inventive" products. Creative imitation as a form of innovation right now is locking the industry into almost a decade of "incrementalism" - I think companies want out of this , or at least a change in how things work (primarily because Microsoft is so good at it, while everyone else isn't, or don't want to be).
So, yes, free software is often a moral choice, but now the question remains if the GPL is the _ONLY_ way to go about doing this. There has to be a way to institute sharing "To allow people to scratch their itches"_BUT_ also enable money to be made.
QUICK LESSON IN CAPITALISM & FREE MARKET ECONOMICS:
(yes I read lots of Peter Drucker)
Businesses still have an obligation to remain profitable - freeing software completely and charging for services & distribution is NOT a way to keep a corporation as large as IBM or Sun afloat. Companies have an obligation to society to turn a profit - profit is the only way society's standard of living increases over time, (such are the rules of capitalism)... Personal strengths make social benefits... by working for a company that exploits your strength... or starting your own.
SO I think there needs to be an alternative licence to at least _INCREASE PERSONAL FREEDOM_, even if it doesn't grant total personal freedom. Notice how "increase" matches very well what I think the point of this community is... Why can't we fight for freedom one step at a time, in an economically literate fashion?
RIGHT NOW, human achievement (which is what economics studies) is measured by NUMBERS. The numbers are created by the Alan Greenspans of the world, and are traded by people like it's their god. Money is *JUST* a bunch of numbers. But it's the way we measure achievement today. I think in the complexity of the world's financial markets, most people have lost sight of that... money has value only because we think it has value. [Of course, this is something most economics scholars don't like telling the masses, mainly because no one would believe it.]
Profit is not evil. The rhetoric you hear from so many managers about "profit maximization" and "profit motive" is ignoring the _objective reason_ for profit. Why do they continue harping on those themes? Ignorance. Most people actually believe that "profit maximization" is the name of the game, when that's not true at all. Profit is not the end goal.. it's the _measurement_ of "how well you're doing".
The open source community is softer than using money as a measuremetn.... human achievement is measured in the quality & quantity of code you produce - increasing your prestige and self-fulfillment. Open source is filling the void of personal mastery that many companies have failed to give to programmers. As such, free software will continue to be an excellent complementary social system over time, however, it *must* co-exist with capitalism as _right now_ we still need a "quantitative measure" of 'how we're doing'. (Any measurement is better than no measurement, right?). And that means saying that you can make money "just" off of services & redistribution is not acceptable - the objective of the game is *more* money, not less. Companies today are supporting open source because they have OTHER streams of revenue (hardware, for instance) to maintain profitability.. it's just a matter of time, however, before the "open hardware" advocates come out of the wordwork... then what? Make money on hardware repairs? or how about making only board-level designs open, and charge for ASIC design?
Sun has found an innovative solution to this that might just work.. the SPARC processor specs are being released, ditto for the source for Java, Solaris, etc. You only have to pay royalities if you sell your modified product. I think this might just work: it increases personal freedom, it increases sharing & learning, and it maintains economic fairness between parties. I think it's a great start, and I'm happy Sun has chosen to be one of the first large companies to dip their toes in the ocean...
Anyhow, that's all I had to say, I think.. rant off
-Stu
you make some good points, it's a pity you are so scathing - we could have had a good argument here.
First, please understand the target audience of my original rant. Yes, it was patronizing because the target was the prototypical "YoU CanNNOT ST0P Th3 L1NuX J1HAD!" Anonymous Coward. Normally, I would not be so patronizing, but I tend to get rather annoyed by the lack of clue displayed here more of then than not.
now, a rebuttal..
My points in favour of profit were based on the objective reason for profit: for-profit organizations exist for the sole purpose of economic performance. They achieve that through creating a customer.
That is an inherently *SOCIAL* function. Profit is a measurement of "how well you're doing" in terms of economic performance, and as you say, it definitely does not measure the "morality" of how you went after that profit.
Since organizations are a social construct they have a social responsibility to be a benefit to society, not a hinderance. No where did I claim otherwise.
My omission of the potential "social harms" of myopic for-profit thinking was due to the already insane length of the rant. Profit is a primary objective of the business because it NEEDS profit for survival, and society NEEDS profit for continued advancement.
This is what puzzles me about your responce: I agree with you - profit does not measure "how you got the money", because that isn't something you can measure quantitatively. Is this a perfect situation? Of course not. It does not make profit a "bad thing", however.
And you chide me for making a patronizing assumption that people "don't get what profit is". Patronizing or not, I'd be surprised if you can tell me with a straight face that the majority of people DO understand the objective nature of profit. Of course, if you disagree with my assessment of profit's objective nature, than I guess this argument is over & we agree to disagree, because that's the fundamental assumption I have, which is largely based on Peter Drucker's writings in the area of management & economics.
Clarification of my assumption about "freedom": I made the assumption that "fighting for freedom" is a battle achieved one step at a time - not all at once. That is my problem with RMS - he is not fighting the battle gradually, he's tackling it head-on, with relatively little progress, I might add (Linus is getting all the credit, isn't he?). I did not mean to allude that there is such a thing as "partial freedom".
Furthermore, by "economic justification for freedom", I was implying that RIGHT NOW, the "grand vision" of the free software movement *is not going to happen* with our current economic structures. These structures must change over time, and in order for them to change, there has to be an incremental, gradual shifting of opinion in favour of increased personal freedom.
It's the "boiled-frog" effect: if you want to change the world, do it one step at a time, otherwise you'll run into great amounts of opposition.
Finally, I think you misunderstand me with regards to "utilitarian" vs. "idealistic". This is primarily my fault for not elaborating my argument in the original rant, because I felt it was already way too long. I do not buy into the dichtomy of "utilitarian" vs "idealistic".
I simply believe that there are MORE effective ways of "changing the world" than the way RMS is attempting to do it. And I believe that the current capitalsim/free market system *works* and isn't going to go away, so any new structure will be a complement to it, not a replacement.
-Stu
Cool. I agree with you. That pretty much sums up my perception of ESR's position vs. RMS'.
-Stu
So, suddenly RMS is against copyright, even though the GPL is built on it?
:-)
IIRC, that's right. The GPL is described as 'using the tools of code horders against them' (ie using copyright to annul itself)
Ah, I see. The message is that because GNU goals are utopian, they can't occupy the moral high ground.
I find that to be quite amusing as well..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
>Once a pool of free software is available, >developing new software will be cheaper. Sure, >programmers won't become billionaires, but >where's the harm in that.
The harm is I won't be able to get my yacht and private island. (except for the native island girls)
:)
Open Source == Free Software, for now, according to the author of the Open Source Definition, Bruce Perens. But how can Free Software supporters keep it that way? How can hackers ensure that Eric Raymond stays loyal to them?
Maybe, just maybe, keep Open Source (TM) owned by the Software in the Public Interest, and license to OSI for marketing. But let SPI have the final say if something controversial comes up.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
This article played down the importance of RMS's firm position against IP and proprietary control of standards. Without his uncompromising stand, the battle would have been lost years ago, while UNIX culture and free software development was threatened by extinction. FSF is the single most important reason we today have Free Software.
Thousands of developers are to be thanked also - for hanging in there while it looked like the battle was lost.
I would not call O'Reilly a leech, but his motivation for being in the book publishing business is nevertheless that trite old "make money" paradigm. Nothing wrong with that - just like there is nothing wrong with making money on the somewhat unsexy work of putting together a distribution RedHat/SuSE/Caldera style. He does open himself to competition from the book equivalent of Debian though - a non-profit, volunteer based effort to create something technically excellent - and free.
O'Reilly completely ignores the OSD to put his own definition on Open Source. Eric Raymond stands by, letting it happen.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
I never get it why some people claim the the free
software ideals are socialist in nature. Personally I consider myself placed somewhere in the realms libertarianism and objectivism, and much prefer Ayn Rand over Karl Marx.
To me having a free OS is a vital part in keeping a steadily more digital world free, and beeing oppresed by a megacorporation isn't any better than beeing hounded by government.
If you follow the logic of those who want to brand us socialist, you might say beeing opposed to slavery is anti-capitalistic because it reduces somebodies property rights.
So go on RMS, you might be a little to idealistic even for my tastes sometimes, but an ideal has to be clear and strong or the world not just dilutes it, but destroys it.
> He seemed to be right on the money about Stallman's beliefs, although he obviously didn't agree with them.
It's all there, but deemphasiasised in such a way that it's a bit misleading. The ability to take free software and make a closed sourced product with it is aluded to, but never explicitly stated. This makes the reasoning behind RMS' position much more confused than it need be.
As you say the author is biased, and as a result the article does a pretty good job of rubbishing RMS.
A few years ago, I tried to articulate what I saw as the fundamentally flawed assumptions being made by cable companies, phone companies, music and movie studios, and software companies in their rush to create the Information Superhighway.
What I ended up with was an essay I named Digital Sculptures. It takes the mechanical realities of today's computers and projects them into the future, leading to an unexpected economic discovery.
It's a bit dated today, and could probably stand a re-write. Nevertheless, it still makes the point reasonably well. If you read it, let me know what you think.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"I heard from a friend at a major bio company that they have a remedy for altsymus (definitely spelt wrong - too lazy to correct it). They haven't brought it to market because they want to develop an alternative treatment that needs to be taken monthly, instead of just once."
Now that just seems wrong.
This is in inverted commas because you got to realise that whilst I believe this statement to be true, no one, including me (because my friend works at this place) is going to substantiate this statement. So don't ask me to, though I'm sure you can believe it.
I believe it to be true.
Yeah I agree. I developed last year a license that allowed a royalty to be charged only for commercial software developed off free software using said license. It was fairly complex to administer and I was going to slap it on the web/usenet/whatever for feedback... but it didn't meet the open source definition or debian free software guidelines.
In fact all the said organisations + FSF explicity forbid this sort of approach to free software.
Oddly, I'm starting to think that might be a good thing, and find myself agreeing more and more with RMS.
from http://www.amazing.com/internet/faq-6.0.html
[The Old Internet Access FAQ - last updated on 22 September 1998 ]
'BSDI users are ferociously loyal to their system. Karl Denninger, probably the most successful provider on the Inet-Access mailing list, uses modified BSDI systems with, if my memory serves, 64MB of RAM and a 1.0GB hard disk on each. (Karl has not corrected my memory, and I'm sure he's seen a copy or two of this FAQ). Each one can service approximately 64 users when a terminal server is used. He has told the world that the system is very solid and technical support is superb - a rarity among operating systems, or any other software for that matter.
Source code license is $ 995.00; binary is $ 545. Once you buy either initial license, a license for each additional machine costs $ 250. Second-day Fedex shipping is included at these prices. I believe they are willing to negotiate a site license for very large numbers of machines. Karl Denninger will probably tell you you need the source; he's modified it extensively. In addition, Eric Raymond said, "Pay the $ 995. it's worth every penny", and Mark E Mallett says, "I agree with the support for the system." You can find out more about BSDI by mailing to info@bsdi.com. The ability to use a BSDI system as a router may make BSDI the system of choice for many providers; this could save you about $1,300 or more, depending on configuration. So you could
buy a BSDI license for the money saved from the router alone. However, you should read our section on Routers below before making that decision. '
I Can't work out if this is controversial or not, or what it says about ESR and free software.
Regards.
I've always had a thought about a physical reality replicator.
Is it too much Iain Banks?
And do you reckon one of those things would be able to replicate a lifeform (gulp)?
Refreshing to see Slashdot is crawling out of the mire. :-)
Refreshing to see Slashdot is crawling out of the flames again. Thankyou :-)
Thanks. My spelling is normally pretty reasonable. I was just too lazy to look that up so I had to fudge it..
"incompletely understood"
But you aren't a geek bioresearcher working at one of the world's biotech/pharmaceutical conglomerates, doing biochemical research, I presume.
At a company where the full time staff (non-programmers) are paid $150+/hour.
And you would probably know what of their "intellectual property" companies are going to release when it doesn't suit commercial expediency.
I think Eric may only want the source to be free, whereas he does not consider it so important that the source is available equally to anyone who wants it.
Or something like that. I can't quite put my finger on it, but that was the point of my post higher up.
BTW Bruce, what are you doing now since you left OSI? It would be nice to see LSB remodelling itself (or at least a part of it) along IETF lines I think, if you are still involved.
Has anyone proposed this idea?
Chris.
Recently the US granted a US biotech company patent rights to a variety of rice native to Thailand. Needless to say, Thai farmers are not amused.
Subject says it all - ESR, with all his charismatic views, standing in the community, and generally good character, he missed one important point - what's the end result?
Sure, OSI may create some temporary gains, but at a long-term loss -
What good is the source if I can't modify it, hmm?
And I'm not sure I can trust the future of "open source" when you can't use the term without putting a (TM) at the end. Let's not even get into the issue of who owns that copyright - it seems to be a piss/ego contest, RMS included.
Truth be told - the GPL is the only way to go, even if you don't like the messenger.
Deal with it.
--
That reads too much like Microsoft-style strategy.
"If we can get away with forcing people to do things our way, we should do so (GPL), otherwise we should support the more open alternative (LGPL)"
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
They advocate that we make essential libraries ( ie those whose functions are unimplemented in non-GNU software ) inaccesible to anyone who wants to make money from their software products.
The LGPL on the other hand allows commercial software developers to use the toolkits. The point of the (L)GPL was originally to protect the free software authors code from being hijacked and sold. The problem with the GPL is that when it comes to toolkits, it prevents commercial software authors from *using* the free product. Where is the free speech on restricting who can *use* your product ? Doesn't it seem hypocritical to call "free for noncommercial use" a restrictive clause, but then to turn around and make your prodcuts totally unavailable for commercial purposes ?
His declaration of war on commercial software would greatly harm linux if anyone took it seriously, as it would ensure that no company would move their software to linux ( owing to the fact that all the GUI toolkits would have licenses requiring them to release their source ... )
Fortunately, most of the world believe that free and commercial software can coexist peacefully.
-- Elflord
Oh, that would be "Alzheimer's".
:)
Given your spelling, I had to think about it for a while
By whom? The resulting software must be given away, not sold, so there will be very little in the way of revenue to pay you with.
Free software has many good points, and is especially useful for small projects (that can be handled by one person in their spare time), or for large projects that don't require much coordination and that don't have a deadline (there are many very useful examples of these). If, OTOH, you need a large amount of organized development done within a moderately short length of time, you're going to need to hire full-time programmers. And in order to pay them, you are going to have to sell your product.
"And in order to pay them, you are going to have to sell your product."
You have to sell _a_ product. Software will effectively not be the product; sell something else.
Such as?
You can't force people to pay for support contracts. Further, if the source for the software is distributed, they'll get better tech support on newsgroups than most companies are likely to produce.
Software that's developed to serve specific hardware is useful if you're a hardware vendor, but this doesn't help you if you're writing a third-party application.
For applications programming, the software _is_ the product. If that's free, there's nothing left to sell, which means it might as well not be written in the first place from the company's point of view.
Let me rephrase my question, as apparently I didn't state it clearly enough - Why would a company pay me to write software if they gained no revenue from it?
If it's an application that the company needs internally that's worth paying the entire development cost for, then it will get written. However, that's a pretty steep cost, and if that's the only case in which applications software is produced, a lot of programmers are going to be out of work...
I happen to know a thing or two about the biotech industry, but let me reduce it for you like this:
Let us assume that you have your way. That all important biotech advances are given to the public for free. Who is going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development for no return. Are you willing to spend the better part of your income to further these advances? I think not. Most people are not. Let us suppose that you say, ok fine, the inventors can get reimbursed for their costs and maybe even get a little profit. Well that sounds fine. But ventures like these involve a great deal of risk, many ventures fail before a successful cure/treatment/etc is found. When you begin to curb profits, this does have an effect on research dollars. The theoretical profits waiting at the end of the 'rainbow', if you will, figure into the equation when computing risk. The greater the risk for the company, the greater the payoffs must be. Aids is extremely high risk, many billions of dollars have already been spent.
While your intentions may be honorable, you reduce the rate of innovation. Also, it is important to remember that even though the government grants a monopoly on the specific intellectual property it doesnt take long for competitors to come in with cheaper replacements and generics. Which drives prices down further. (Another reason why you have to allow the inventing company to make monopoly profits initially).
Another point is that the capitalistic model allocates resources far more efficiently. In non-capitalistic societies, the government partions out what funds go where. Frequently, it is to those with the best credentials. Well let me tell you something, more times than not, it is those in industry with lesser credentials who get a working 'cure' out first.
While I would have ethical problems with a company that would let thousands of poor people die, I would be hesitant to stick my foot in the middle. Innovation is not a ONE shot process. It is a continual process, if you start muddling with it, you cripple it. The end result would be that poor people get their treatment later, rather than later, if at all.
Where are the "Free" advances in modern medicine. Which were brought all the way into fruition without capitalistic intentions. If you truely believe that Open */ Free * works so well, then do so. Open Medicine can _attempt_ to develop advances on its own. But I ask you, if it fails, you conceed the fact that it didn't work in the given situation, and that you _must_ allow capitalism to go about its business. Please don't espouse movements to shutdown a process that performs far better than idealistic theories. It may have some flaws, but in the end it gets the job done better.
You don't know the first thing about business. Microsoft is the exception to the rule. They are one of the few cases where government intervention is neccessary. Most companies don't act like MS does. Most companies can't afford to. MS is a monopoly, and one that, if you didn't notice, the government is trying to break up. Most businesses CANT afford to operate the way MS does.
I know plenty successfull businessmen, and while profits are nice, it doesn't mean that you rape your customers. The CEO's obligation to the shareholders is indeed to maximize profits, not maximize prices. They are not one in the same.
Secondly, the third world lacks even trained doctors for the most part. Their problems go far beyond a simple lack of money. But there is a thing known as discriminative pricing. This effectively means that you charge more to people who can afford it, and less to those who can't.
Finally, whatever your personal views on capitalism is. It works. If you want to refute my points, try bringing some hard evidence in and rational arguments, not this emotional crap that you call an argument. The fact is, if capitalistic interests can produce where non-profit interests fail, who are you to say that NO ONE can benefit from the capitalists. That is effectively what you do when you advocate curbing of profits.
Well for every one product that you can show me that the government is directly responsible for, there are 10000 others produced by private industry. The fact is the government is not the best at allocating resources. I shudder to think of a world in which the government is responsible for all scientific innovation. Think U.S.S.R. They produced damn little for all the money they spent. Even in the military sector, most of their advances were mere copies of the wests. It is not that the USSR lacked great minds, there are many.
I was talking about innovation, not garbage collection and other essential services. I guess it might be possible for the government to produce some innovation, but frankly there is damn little you can point to for this kind of success in any government. With the exception of perhaps the Manhattan project and other similar war efforts.
My point is not that everyone in private industry suceeds. Far from it. It is basically darwinian, survival of the fittest and all that. If a company doesn't produce, they cease to exist. If a government agency fails to produce, they keep on going for ages afterwards, while continuing to gobble resources. In private industry, big money tends to follow success not credentials. In the government, money just seems to be an accepted fact, its not based on performance. I could go on.....but I think you get the point.
The initial fixed costs(eg: development) for many software products are in the millions. I admit that I love Linux, but I can not say that Linux or any other OSS product is particularly innovative. The barrier in OSS, is the commitment of time and resources. Less money. All of the strong OSS programs essentially boil down to one core leader, and a large following. Well not all great ideas seem so great from the get go. Many people will say a thing is impossible, or that they don't see a use for it. Besides, where is the forum to find qualified people interested in making an OSS MRP system. I doubt there are many coders who are thinking right now, gee I really want to create an MRP system. In capitalism atleast, the almighty buck serves to commit others to one mans' vision. (No I am not an MS supporter)
Yes, I would say it does. A business is no better than the people who run it. People are not fundamentially evil people. Just because I put on a suit before I go to work, does not mean I enter evil mode. Sure, you can point to a few bad companies, and even bad actions of otherwise good companies. This does not mean that all companies are overall bad. People have killed for money, but far more people have killed for idealism. Did Adolf Hitler sell the Mein Kampf? Just because its free doesn't make it any better.
I fail to see what makes a medtech company that produces an artificial pancreas for diabetics inately evil. What makes you think that the employees do not recieve stock options? What makes you think that this company pollutes their environment? Pushes neighboors out, etc. Many, Many, Companies contribute to the quality of life of people, without some 'leaching' from the lives of others. So yes, I do take it personally when some Red Dot Zealot implies that all capitalistic actions are somehow tainted. There is nothing inherantly wrong with money, this is how people put food on the table. The ideas that many slashdoters propose would do a great deal of damage to our society.
I think Cuba is a pretty miserable place, but ignoring that. Why is it that Cuban-American immigrants send millions of dollars back to their families. Even the relatively poor here, in the US, are 10x better off than in Cuba.
My arguments are fundamental capitalism issues, I do not view large corporations as being bastions of this. More times than not it is the little guy that does something truely revolutionary. I will not say that capitalism is not without faults. What I will say is that this is the real world. Sure it would be nice if everyone was 'equal', but such world could not prosper. Capitalism is a proven winner over all, it has been shown to work. Socialism is a failure. Many say it looks fine on paper..... Even on paper, when you break it down into its components, it is lacking. One major point, is why should the individual take risk. Risk takers in capitalistic society are rewarded in the aggregate. In socialist societies, more times then not there are disincentives for risk taking. One failure, and you could be out of that job...
Anyhow, what I was arguing initially was that the government should not appropriate advances made by Medtech firms. My whole point is that non-profits and for-profits can theoretically coexist. Those who believe in doing the right thing for 'free', may continue to research. Those for profit corporations may as well. The issue is, is that it is the for-profit firms that are bringing these advances. If the non-profit machine fails to work, why should you break the for-profit machine. That is essentially what you do when you start to mess with it.
These discussions keep bringing up medicine. Its totally inappropriate. Free markets (real real ones, not monopolies, cartels, etc.) work quite well for most things, so long as you have reasonable regulations to limit co-lateral damage (e.g. pollution control laws).
The medical industry is different. People want preventions, but will only pay a lot for a cure. With the cost of clinical trials to get something approved so high, the only things industry will develop through to clinical use are products for common problems that the cure won't fix too quickly. The structure of this industry is all screwed up.
Of course, the pharmacy business is full of nasty practices like any other industry - e.g. monitoring world famines to work out when to hike vitamin prices - but few freely operating industries have motivations so far out of line with customer benefit.
There are subtle differences that even I don't quite understand that some people happen to believe.
As far as I understand, there are several different views;
free software; freely given away to be freely used. Source is by no means always included. The ability to use Id software's Quake/Quake2 engine to make any game and release it for free, for example. You don't get access to the source for the engines, nor can you modify them nor improve them except for utilization of a plug in modification architecture.
Free Software; freely given away to be used, learned from, modified, and redistributed. A unique concept in a world where ideas are worth money. Sometimes mixed with Open Source... I think Free Software can't be sold, but I'm not sure. Sometimes Linux is classified under Free Software, sometimes it isn't.
Open Source; source is always available. The option of pricing and selling exists. Modifications to source must always be released if a product or distibution is made, IIRC. Linux is very much Open Source; sometimes it is also Free Software. I get confused sometimes =)
If your distinction between free and open is not about price, I can't really cogently answer you. Sorry.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Sometimes you do just pay for talent;
Assuming you are aware of the Quake series of games, and the forthcoming Quake3:Arena, here is some code that is not GPLed, with some minor competition from Crystal Space, but far ahead of Crystal Space at the same time.
Their source is not open, as that is what they have spent years of their lives working on, but on the other hand they make no secret of what exactly they do or why they do it. If another group of coders feel up to the challenge, they are free to implement and play and release on their own everything mentioned by Id software. Nor do they restrict usage of their engine; you can download the binaries off the net, and using free tools one could make from scratch their own Quake game, and release it for free. If you want to make money off the time effort, energy, and skill you put into the game, you have to license the code from Id, but in response you also get the source and support as well.
Can you counter that Crystal Space or any other group are as dedicated, able, or competent as Id software? Only thus far commercial products have been even close, competatively, and thus when we pay for their products we are paying for state of the art cutting edge. No insult to those working on Crystal Space, it really does look nice, but without the mix of commercial rewards and personal dedication found in a small company as Id software, things don't get done nearly as fast. Deadlines, costs, budgets, and resource constraints work wonderfully to sharpen and hone a company and group that doesn't really exist outside in the Open Source model, except perhaps for passion, and I don't think you'll find a lack of passion at Id software.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
In particular, with that "
it's just a matter of time, however, before the "open
hardware" advocates come out"
People writing software is one thing, but it's silly to compare this to making a cpu, for example. This analogy simply does not work.
I disagree with ORA's article too. They're making money off UNIX and I'm not saying its bad, since they're making a great job, but it's obvious that they're interested in promoting the viewpoint that free software is something that was necessary at the start and now OSS is coming into play and sort off replace FSF. Well, it might be true but I hope that the opposite happens - OSS will help the concept to get into mainstream and in ~10 years all commercial software will be replaced by GPLd software, and coders will be making money by tweaking the software to fit specific companie's needs. That would be better for everybody in the long run, IMHO.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
"Profit is not evil" you say. And how true this is. As you rightly point out it is merely an abstracted measure of something else, in this case "how well you're doing". Unfortunately in focussing on an ill-formed caricature of the objections that many have to big-business you elide some of the important points of these arguments. Your rant in favour of "free-market economics" ignores the fact that profits which measure how-well-you're-doing can be based on BAD things or GOOD things. BAD things (to define my terms) include profiting off other people starving, getting sick, having to do unpleasant things (like sexual or physical prostitution). So if one merely applies your pollyannaish definitions that refuse to look at the actual results of the mechanisms of profit then one might feel as you do that everything in the garden is rosy. But then you're not the one that is coping with the toxins produced from the manufacture of your PC and you didn't slave in a factory to produce the McDonald's Happy Toy which is probably cutely adorning your PC. (Or maybe you do pay some of the environmental price in Windsor). Anyway this nasty reply is motivated by your patronizing assumption that "people don't understand that profits aren't bad, oh they are so stupid, why can't they see it's a measure" rant. Perhaps you would like to step back and assume that RMS is not the "idealist utopian" who is pitted against the "pragmatic utilitarian". Perhaps you would like, for the sake of argument, to see what happens if you follow the idea that particular systems tend to evolve to particular classes of outcomes. You make the interesting assumption that freedom can be something that is not "all or nothing" or "COMPLETE". Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant or half dead? In this same paragraph you talk about RMS having a moral view that is not "economically justified". Freedom does not need economic justification, it is an end in itself and as soon as it is forgotten as the primary motivation for the Linux community then the profit-mongers instead of being partially useful symbionts and occasional parasites will be farmers herding the user sheep for their own gain. You buy completely into the false dichotomy of "utilitarian" versus "idealistic". Sometimes idealism is utilitarian and pragmatic.
Interesting historical FACT!!!. I have to say that I think the big lie here really is that there is some sort of opposition between being pragmatic and being idealistic. A failure to follow the ideals that are so ably articulated by RMS will lead to a pragmatic failure also. Either the "Open Source" advocates believe in the idea of freedom and think that they can fool business by not calling it that or else they see a rich resource that they can now plunder. Establishing themselves as the curators of the accumulated collective work of generations of idealistic, utopian hackers puts them in a position to "sell" it to business.
Well, I remain unconvinced that your viewpoint adds clarity to an analysis of whether RMS or ESR are correct. One of the problems
with too much abstraction is that one tends to lose sight of reality. The arguments that result from this sound logical, rational and
reasonable yet the results often turn out to be ludicrous, inefficient and unwanted. John Ralston Saul attacked this attitude in
"Voltaire's Bastards". He details how technocrats that abstract too far created complex, logical models and systems within which
they could sound perfectly reasonable. It is only apparent to those outside of these systems that the models are a bad fit to reality.
Exactly the same problems pertain to the free-market zealots. They really are utopian idealists who believe that somehow or other
order will emerge from economic chaos. The fact that no economy exists that allows the "free-hand" to operate does not deter them.
Nor are they deterred by the fact that the world's most dominant economy has a MASSIVE amount of government intervention in the
market through the pentagon subsidy system.
So to return to the point at hand: what is the evidence that physically exists about Free Software? To my admittedly biased viewpoint
it seems that RMS through the uncompromising, utopian, idealistic mechanism of the GPL has created the niche that we all inhabit in
this community. I don't want to change from this or
accept anything in its place that is motivated by a consideration of, or kow-towing to a goal which is inimically pitted against my
interests. My interests are in having a good, cheap OS. The interests of those companies that don't want to use the GPL are as you
have pointed out, SOLELY in making a profit. Their raison d'etre is to exploit me. Many, many clever, intelligent and resourceful
hackers have built this structure. Now that it is of value many, many devious, greedy entrepeneurs want to sell it back to us. It got as
good as this through being Free. It will get better through being Free. I aplogize for the strident tone of these responses to you, but I
can't believe that this may be all thrown away in front of my very eyes.
The more I think about RMS argument the more I think he has a point. The ethical problem with intellectual property is just not that
apparent with IT. Consider biotechnology. Just imagine a firm controlled the intellectual property to cure AIDS. They'd maximize profit.
The first world is paying like crazy and the third world victims are even to poor to afford a bullet to shoot themselves.
That is of course true. I just picked that example to emphasize the moral dilemma.
Copyleft works for IT because you just need a computer and internet access to produce and share good code. If state of the art
laboratories were comparably cheap as a PC, copyright on biotech would be really ugly.
R&D is treated as sunk cost by a firm. Afterwards the finance people will maximize the cash inflow, the longer the better. That means the
price the world has to pay for the product is completely unrelated to the effort for R&D once the product is ready.
I think the discussion clearly uncovered that the difference between biotech and IT is the fact
that the latter is clearly intangible, whereas hands-on biotech research needs capital intensive facilities. But the ideas - the algorithms how to produce what - are intangible. That is what bothers me: Until the beginning of this century all research was either government sponsored or private leisure of wealthy individuals (with notable exception of Edison, Tesla, perhaps a couple more). X-rays were discovered in Germany by Roentgen who did not even understood why he should patent this discovery when somebody asked him about it. When the first antibiotics was discovered by chance in France the findings were published immediately. The scientists weren't in it for the money, but the recognition. Just as your average Gnome or KDE developer is in it for the recognition. And though there is no money involved we certainly see a lot of competition going on there.
FallLine was pointing out that the market resource allocation based on financial analysis is more efficient than government sponsoring. I tend to believe that this is correct for most material, scarce resources. I just don't see why a financial analysts should be more qualified in assessing the chances of a researcher to succeed than a government agency which decides - for example - based on a peer review process.
What bothers me even more is the fact that while a researcher works in this company he can not disclose his information to another scientist somewhere else. He can not ask for advice if he has to uncover any specific knowledge. He might end up in a dead end just because he can not publish his results.
You mentioned Hitler. Well the interesting thing in WWII is that many ordinary not necessarily
evil German men committed horrible crimes just because they were ordered to do so. There was an
interesting psychological experiment done in the US in the 60s were men from the street were asked
to participate in an experiment. They were told they had to reinforce the learning of another man
by giving him an electrical shock when ever he makes a mistake in answering a question about
something he was supposed to memorize. All participants were told before the experiment that
shocks over 100V can be potentially deadly. During the experiment an instructor told them to
increase the voltage. All participants followed the order. Many went until the very end of the
scale. None stopped even when the bonded "learner" begged them to. The "learner" was of
course an actor, but the participants did not know. I saw the footage once on public TV. It
was scary.
Why do I tell that here? Well, if you ever saw an organizational chart of the government structure
of the 3. Reich you notice it has a superficial similarity to a company.
You are certainly right that companies are not inherently bad, but they are not inherently good
either, and a bad boss might make you do bad things. How much do you compromise before you
walk out? How much do you have to compromise because you need to earn the food on the table
and can not walk out?
Christopher wrote:
> By whom? The resulting software must be given away, not sold, so there will be very little in the way of revenue to pay you with.
You can still be paid to write the software. You're not paid for a copy of the software, just the service of writing it.
-- Abigail