Slashdot Mirror
The Power of Openness
Orca writes "Here is a really well written critique of the Open Source / Free Software movement. It talks about open source code from both a technical and a philosophical / social point of view and proposes the creation of H20, an 'independant not-profit organization to help foster the development and usage of the new software.' "
The gift economy has been alive and well since the dawn of
creation. The gift economy is not in opposition to business
but is the source of its existence. Here are some examples:
In one's own life, have you a family? Childen can be a gift, or
a curse, and are taught responsible behavior based on their
percieved maturity by parents to give what they can and take
what they need. Do parents keep a careful tally of costs
and benefits? No, they give and receive without
giving it a second thought. Likewise children learn to do
the same, unless they live in an emotionally starved home.
Software is like human language. What is required to write
great software today? About what was required to write a
book 100 years ago, relative to our technology. I can write
great software with a consumer brand PC as my notepad
and a modem for collaboration with others. Such software
will run on all kinds of platforms. Multi-billion dollar corporations
can do no better than I can do with a $1000 investment.
You are very wrong if you think that there is much relationship
between creative works of an intellectual nature (books,
music, art, software) and financial reward. Sure, great artists
have to earn a living, but not necessariy from their great
works. Most great artists in the past made a living not
from royalties for their works but by performing in shows,
or doing hack work for patrons that nobody remembers.
It all comes down to what you regard to be the source of
everything. If you regard the source to be limited and ruled
by the laws of scarcity, then you will be inclined to keep careful
tally of dues and debts and apply the same standards to
others. At least you will thereby be a consistently honest
aethiest or worshipper of the golden calf (in Western religions)
or of Maya or illusion (in Eastern religion).
If on the other hand you regard the source of everything to
be infinite and unlimited, and not "owned" any individual or
group or company, you will have a different perspective.
Within the larger context there may be laws of supply and
demand to provide a structure to life, and each subset of
humanity may have its own rules. But, you will be willing to
transcend those limitations somewhat and acknowledge that
everything really is a gift, and if you really feel that way you
will spontaneously give back without even giving it a thought.
Only such a life is worth living.
What is driving "Open Software" is not hatred of Microsoft,
but the inspiration to create and the ongoing evolution of
humanity. Was the internet created by hatred of MS?
"Open Software" is the big leagues and now companies are
wanting to join. They are now in Spring Training but some
won't make the cut.
Most people don't care about tinkering with carburetors, but
the only way there will be competition, including competition
among commercial companies, is if some people do tinker.
This "tinkering" can be done by individuals like myself working
from our homes, or by more organized groups and think tanks
or both. There can really be no competition when software is
not open. Consider a new commercial comany setting out
to develop software and sell it and make money. They never
start from scratch but rely on a rich heritage of knowledge and
technique about how to write programs which is owned by
nobody. We build on that heritage in every endeavour.
The "Open Source" movement today provides a legal framework
and sense of community in which individuals and groups can
continue to add to that knowledge base that is universal,.
This "movement" is only necessary because there is also
a well organized movement afoot to own and control knowledge
itself. We should not need GNU or BSD but do in today's
world because of forces which seek to control which are
anti-God, inhuman and dishonest.
If the gift economy dies, then humanity will die, and the natural
world will die. There would be nothing.
fortunate but unworthy
This organization clearly puts emphasis on source code. The "Open Source" movement (www.opensource.org and friends) puts emphasis on source code also. GNU is about freedom. GNU is not about code quality, software cost, or whatever else you believe. GNU stands for one thing, and one thing only--freedom. It seems to me as if many people want our movement to move in the direction of source code. This is not good enough. Companies can, will, and currently do provide un-free source code. What I mean by this is that companies provide source code which you can do little to nothing with. You can not modify, redistribute, or sell. GNU allows you to sell. You could sell a GPL program for $1 million if you wanted. I can not do this with many companies' licenses.
If we need an "image" for our movement, I believe it should be something to do with freedom and not source code. We currently have the terms "shareware", "freeware" (not free as in free speech, but free as in free beer), and "commercial" that the main stream recognizes. These are all present in Windows land, but barely touch Unix land. One way to get a new term out there (say we wanted to coin the term "copyleft software" as meaning freedom software) is to write GPL programs for Windows. But, we don't call these programs "freeware", "shareware". Instead we refer to them as "copyleft software". In the "About" boxes you could place things such as "This program is copylefted software. Please refer to the GPL license for more information".
A little about me.. I'm not an extremist as RMS is when it comes to freedom of software. Every computer I have used has had proprietary software. I could rarely find source code. This was okay.. I was no programmer. Anyways, the point is I had lived with proprietary software and I did not know there was an alternative to being proprietary. Hardware, on the other hand, was fairly "open". Every modem I came across for my XT, 386, etc. all worked basically the same. Every CGA/EGA/VGA card worked the same. I could use my modem with any software package I found. The same went for my sound cards, video cards, hard drives, and anything else. Today this has changed. Sure we have common hard drive, floppy drive, etc. interfaces. But, many things are changing. Sound cards have become very proprietary. I can only use my SB Live in Windows. My Riva TNT video card only has 3D acceleration in Windows. These companies will not allow me to get information on my own hardware. I paid them for the hardware--but they only allow me to use it with certain software. It is like buying a TV and later finding out you need a special remote control to operate it (one which costs money and you do not have). I was never around to see the software side of computing like RMS did. But, I believe what I have seen of the hardware side is much like what RMS saw years ago.
Let me tell you another story. My sister is a political science graduate and did all of the necessary doctor work. One day me and her argued about the necessary change of humanity. I forget the point, but it was something about abusing nature. I agreed with her and said, what is the solution. She said do x y z, since it worked so well in that case. I looked at her and said, never in a million years. She argued that I was not even willing to try and comprehend. I responded the problem is not me, but the scale.
My point is that H20 is an example of what happens when something tries to play in the big leagues. GNU, OpenSource and all of these folks worked when it was a small focused group. Now that LINUX, GNU, etc is actually getting attention the entire thing is crumbling. People are yelling at each. The old timers are disgusted with what is happening. And RMS is here to save the world.
Folks OpenSource will only work to a degree. It was mentioned that with open source I can tinker and change my own carberator. Sure, but the reason why that economy works is because you had to pay for the carb!!! With open source you pay nothing.
The gift economy will never work because communism never worked. Do not mistake this with Russian or Chinese communism. In the communist manifesto, "People will give all they can and only take what they need". Sounds like the gift economy to me folks.
What is driving OpenSource is peoples hatred of Microsoft. Lets not forget about 10 years ago, people hated Microsoft because of their closed ways. Now the tables have turned.
Opensource will remain, but it will remain a niche. CNN just did an Insight edition on LINUX, the Microsoft alternative. Who did they interview? Mr Young from Redhat. What support of software did they mention for LINUX, ORACLE and Corel. Under the masses of people open source code and tinkering DOES NOT MATTER. Alternatives and competition do!
Christian Gross
> One of the main points of the 'Bazaar' is that it's SELF-ORGANIZING.
> People will coalesce around interesting projects/leaders/problems of
> their own free will. When these are no longer interesting, people leave
> and go elsewhere.
How does creating a new standards organization or "leadership" group change that? Nobody says you have to listen to H2O. This is no more of a threat to FS/OSS than is, say, the existence of multiple Linux-based OS distributions.
Nobody is talking about force here. Nobody is saying that all FS/OSS projects must hew to H2O lines, any more than they have to hew to GNU lines or (horrors!) Red Hat lines. This is just another organizing effort, just like a distribution or a standards body. Let it succeed or fail on its merits.
(People really ought to read Marx, instead of disparaging him from ignorance.)
The reactions to this article bespeak appalling historical and political ignorance. I believe, that without political organization, much of the Open Source or Free Software movement will be co-opted, inasmuch as it supports the current system of the software business, and the remains that do not support that system outlawed.
If the OS/FS movement is to maintain its much-vaunted freedom, we need political and historical sophistication and organization, and this article is a welcome step in that direction.
You will not win against the closed-source types as individual designers, even very talented individual designers. That is a Utopian fantasy of designers and every designer in history who has ever tried to put it into practice has failed. Design cannot create social forms--only social, sometimes political, action can do that. Stallman knows this--that is why he founded the FSF. How people act and believe is important.
You have, in this article, support from some genuinely effective and decent activists. I suggest you treat them decently and with respect, for you will need them and you have a long hard journey ahead of you.
What was it exactly that was "Bad" (tm) in this article? I didn't get the impression that this org wants to take credit or ownership of OpenCode.. It looked to me like they see the concept that we take for granted as being something that could change the face of business and community for everyone.. Sounds admireable to me.
-- You can be a geeklord too
I think this is an extremely well thought out essay on Open Source. It is not a simple 10 minute opinion, but a long, exhausing look into opensource and what it has to offer.
The benefits that users reap from open code software - customization, innovation, education, security, efficiency, reliability, cost savings - are actually "symptoms" of their collective empowerment as users. By banding together to assert their common interests, open code software users acquire an entirely new dimension of power
The document combines a lot of ideas about open source, and a lot of the advantages, showing both the history and advantages as it starts out.
The author puts forth a commendable effort to call Linux "GNU/Linux" and keep the terms straight, referencing to it as Linux only when he talks about the kernel, "The conjoining of the GNU system with the so-called Linux kernel..." and calling it "GNU/Linux" through out most of the document, "...huge popularity that GNU/Linux has achieved...".
"GNU/Linux might never have emerged but for Stallman's second innovation: the GNU General Public License (GPL), sometimes known as "copyleft." Stallman astutely realized that simply putting free software into the public domain was not enough, because anyone could make minor changes in a program and then copyright it, converting it back into a proprietary product. Without some legal vehicle, the benefits of free software could be privatized and withheld from the community of users."
A very good point, im glad they brought that forward. The author continues on with his excellent reference to Eric Raymonds "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" work, and incorperates it nicely.
". Its appeal is not just that it is cheaper, more versatile, reliable and customizable software."
I dont quite know if I can agree with that comment. Although yes, it is cheaper to obtain, the price for training on how to use it, and the training for how to fix it is not cheap.
I really enjoyed reading this document, it is a very complete, one of the most compete I have read so far that has a lot of thought put into it. The author references to many possible set backs with OS and things being done to prevent them from occuring. Good job David Bollier, you put forth an excellent paper.
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff
SB.
What might be useful is taking the "peer review" principle from the scientific world, and applying it to OSS even more than it is being applied already. This is, have a body of people who review code on a volunteer basis, rather than a fragmented community with no crossover between the different development groups (except for Alan Cox, who seems to do everything)
GNU allows you to sell. You could sell a GPL program for $1 million if you wanted. I can not do this with many companies' licenses.
You could legally sell a GPL'ed program, but you cannot realistically expect to be able to do that. Because people can get the source code for free, they will get it from a free place, or at least a place that's a heck of a lot cheaper than $1000000. The problem with GPL is that it gives people so much "freedom", that GPLed code might as well be free beer.
How much money did the Linux kernel authors get for their efforts? How much money do distributors (Red Hat, etc.), support sellers (Linux Care), and book publishers (O'Reilly, etc.) make? GPL is biased against the developers. Those who write the code get almost nothing.
The only way a company could actually make money developing GPL'ed software is if they charged *one* person the entire R&D price to get the source. Once that one person gets it, the original developer has no hope of getting any real profits, since the source can (and will) be distributed for free.
A little about me... I'm not extremist. I like free software, and I use and contribute to it. I also believe that proprietary software has a place, until you show me otherwise. If you want all software to be free, explain how developers can make a living writing free software.
Neither RMS nor ESR does this adequately. RMS essentially requires that developers make only as much as sales clerks, and are funded with a software tax. RMS also thinks developers don't deserve recognition or reward for writing code, yet he paradoxically wants to be recognized for his contributions by having Linux renamed "GNU/Linux". (look for "artisan" on the GNU philosophy pages if you don't know what I'm talking about)
ESR has several business models on the opensource.org site, but very few of them make money for developers, only for tech-support, book and t-shirt sellers.
I'm still waiting for an example of a company that sells software, and only software, where all of the software is copyleft, and the company actually makes a profit. The FSF doesn't count, as it survives because of charitable donations, not sales.
I don't see how an advocacy group such as this could possibly be negative. How can you possibly complain about a non-profit group that wishes to advance the cause of free software.
When a multinational corporation sues you for violating some obscure, nonsensical patent in the free software you've created and you can't afford to legal fees to research the case, you'll be quite happy to have a group like this around to provide research and perhaps pro-bono assistance.
This group seems to have the same ulterior motives as those that write free software- to help to create a fair and free society. Although there are quite a lot of greedy, immoral lawyers out there, there are many who take up the legal profession in order to effect positive change in society. These advocates of freedom have been and will always be the front line of defense against big-business influenced legislation and litigation that restricts the freedom of individuals to share knowledge and do business amongst themselves. We would be an oligarchy if it weren't for these people.
As far as their claim to offer leadership, this is quite welcome. Leadership is not synonymous with dictatorship. A society can have many leaders. Leaders take an active role to clarify and promote viewpoints. Like free software, the best aspects of those viewpoints will be combined to result in a stronger, clearer message. We should welcome new leaders, as opposed to being xenophobic and spreading suspicion that they are 'out to get us'.
Mike
That little item stood out like a nail in need of a bang.
Where does a Harvard academic body get off trying to set up a central authority over OSS?? Once you set up a regulatory committee to versee a bazaar, it ceases to be a bazaar and becomes a strip mall.
It sounds like a case of envy directed at the Regents of UC Berkeley, the MIT Athena project, and the X Consortium. All great and beneficial committee driven endeavors, but very commercialized.
The greatest strength and key to the sucess of OSS, has been it's independence from an opinionated and bribable ruling body. Yes, we have our focal-points, our heroes and the leaders we rally around, but we can tell them they're full of bull when they are. You just can't do that with a board of directors, who set priorities on certain projcts by mentioning them in the monthly newsletter, who receive grant money from corporate entities, and who seek personal prestige as a group.
Free Source software should stay the same as it is. An organic, semi-chaotic, self-correcting distributed development effort. And anyone who stakes claim or grabs for credit should be shown the door.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
And I think the agenda highlighted for H2O is dead-on.
There's a real question today about the breadth of solutions that can be developed in the open-source model as it currently exists. Can "niche" products attract the developer base that they need to leverage the benefits of the bazaar? This is still unproven, I think.
The folks at Harvard that are involved with this are serious heavyweights when it comes to public policy analysis and lobbying strategy. It behooves the community (IMHO) to think about the issues here sooner than later. Some of us aren't fans of our local or national governments, but it surely must be better for the Government to think that open-source is a Good Thing than that it's a Bad Thing.
The promise of convincing governments of this (obviously, USA-centric at first) is the goal of the organization, and I think it's a worth one.
-- Eric
Good point on the centralization thing. These things should die out of their own accord. But after I've stripped out all of the flowery language, the marketing-droid double speak, and the academic how can I stretch a one sentence idea into a forty page masters thesis bull, I get one argument:
"Hey, bazaar! You really, really, really, NEED a cathedral. If you don't have one, none of the other cathedrals will take you seriously. And WE'RE just the people to build it for you!"
We're gonna hear a LOT of this in the near future. And I think it's important to let people know that not only do we NOT need it, but we've got a better way of doing things.
BTW I have it on good authority that Alan Cox is actually a group of at least 15 people who go by that name. But don't tell anyone.
One of the main points of the 'Bazaar' is that it's SELF-ORGANIZING. People will coalesce around interesting projects/leaders/problems of their own free will. When these are no longer interesting, people leave and go elsewhere.
Yet, as with the Internet when it first came to the attention of the prevailing pop culture, there is a terrible fear that NO ONE IS IN CHARGE HERE. We can't have such an important development as the Internet (and now open source) without having SOMEONE IN CHARGE. Some large, bureaucratically organized group of people who know more than we do to guide, direct, and take control of this terrifyingly chaotic environment.
Bull. We're gonna see a LOT of these newbie-come-latelies trying to jump on to the latest hot thing bandwagon offering to provide leadership and guidance that WE DON'T NEED.
Just say no to H20.
While the article was a well thought out and interesting look at Open Source/Free Software/et al, I can't help but get the Jonny-come-lately feeling about H2O. "Hi, we'd like to set up shop as your leaders and spiritual guidance counselors, which way to the podium?"
Not that I think the article is without merits. Oh no, it struck the head with the nail on many a point. The lack of future feature insight, our chaotic nature of development (benefits and penalties), the potential traps of "almost-open" licenses......none of which is exactly new news, but is here treated in a competent and clear cut overview.
Actually, of all of the ideas presented by this paper, only one really jumped out and grabbed me by the jugular. The creation of a repository for all once proprietary and now discarded software, which is growing almost as fast as the internet.
"Popular programs such as Sidekick, Xtree, EchoPro and soon, it is predicted, Eudora, are being thrown on the dustbin, forcing satisfied users to buy new software. H20 proposes becoming a standing repository for these programs by becoming the legal owner of the source code and, where possible, helping interested user groups to organize themselves to sustain legacy products."
Again, I think this is a great idea, and one that I feel could even be feasible(Hell, I'd LOVE to see this happening). However, to add this on top of the shaky pyramid of power that H2O is trying to build is overkill. "Not only do we want to influence you, but we want to posess all you used to hold near and dear." Say yes to legacy apps, but I'd have to say no to H2O.
Papa's got a brand GNU bag. -- Advertisement: year 30 ALC (After Linux Commercialization)
Scientific research in academia works that way too. It works pretty well.
OpenSource is not crumbling, it's just getting so big that consensus is taking more work (or just not happening). More useful work is being done, it's just being done a little less efficiently with more duplication of effort. Arguments are no sign of decay; the FreeBSD/Linux split, for example, hasn't destroyed the free software movement. A certain amount of duplication of effort makes the system more robust: if Linus had just decided to wait for the HURD kernel, we wouldn't have Linux today, and probably wouldn't have such a well-developed platform for the GNU (and other copylefted) tools.
I don't believe OpenSource is the answer for all software development, but I believe it will coexist well in the future with commercial development, in the same manner that scientific research coexists well with commercial engineering projects. We're still just learning how to divide up the work.
Without a PR arm, we don't have a chance of changing the social constructs that make the proprietary "hate-thy-neighbor" software industry _possible_. Without a legal arm, we're not capable of protecting our own or anyone else's intellectual property from misappropriation, from software patents or outright theft. Without a research arm, we lack the ability to track, critique, and eventually shape computing trends to as great an extent. Without a marketing arm, the ONLY thing we have to go on is quality, and though we might like to believe that rational people will choose systems and components based on quality, all you need to do is look at history (or, for that matter, the present) for a good slap in the face and wakeup call.
There's no point in settling for free beer when you can have a Renaissance. (The author mentions this at the end of the paper, by the way.)
-jhp
(cypherhippy)
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.