When Linux Mag notes that Linux is more a "development methodology" than an operating system, Wladawksy-Berger neatly sidesteps the issue, merely responding that it's important that developers can easily port their apps between Linuces. (He does add a bit of abstract and highly-qualified praise for community-based development.) Truth is, IBM won't change their internal design lifecycles that easily, and, for the most part, I don't think they need to.
Nonetheless. This is exactly what Linux needs: a high-end, organizationally-driven addition that will help make Linux a viable choice in the enterprise arena. For the first time, I'm starting to consider Linux a real competitor for my business. I'm not ready to turn in my E10K yet, but....
"We are... a busy, enterprising, and commercial nation. The habits attached to this character must... inevitably lead us under the specious names of utility, practical knowledge, and so forth, to look at all things through the medium of the market, and to estimate the worth of all pursuits and attainments by their marketable value."
These words, which so well fit America in the new millenium, were penned by Coleridge in the prefatory years before the Victorian age. It was an age where, despite the great feats of engineering that marked the Industrial Age, there was a persistent "anti-intellectualism," an "association of learning with idle gentlemen or lazy academics who contribute[d] nothing to the needs of the world." (Houghton's "The Victorian Frame of Mind," which also supplied the above Coleridge quotation.) The father of the great British politician Gladstone, like many other wealthy men of the time, considered education destructive to the commercial impulse (thankfully, the future Prime Minister was not the inheritor of his father's business enterprises).
As strange as it may seem, the culture of networked computing that exists today is also highly anti-intellectual, dedicated to the acquisition of venture capital and stock options, engineering "feats" like Napster, to short "news" items culled without context, three-sentence Slashdot commentaries, and, need I say it, the wink-and-a-nod innuendo of columnists like Drudge. Our interest in science is limited to the practical, or possibly practical, experiments reported in Slashdot, Discover, or The New Scientist; advances in the "impractical" sciences languish in obscurity, since they offer no practical benefits or methods of securing venture capital. And humanities and the liberal arts, of course, are, at best, beside the point and at worst a distraction; technology, as Wired, Napster, and countless others have drummed into our ears, must drive society, rather than the other way 'round.
With a few -- very few -- exceptions (Knuth leaps to mind), programmers are journeymen and skilled labor, not logicians, mathematicians and scientists of any note. We certainly -- bereft of any education or experience in politics, history, theology and philosophy -- are not qualified to set the course our societies must sail. Without any mooring in traditional political thought, and possessed of success in a world that has afforded great economic benefit to our class, most of us gravitate to the smug selfishness of Ayn Rand, proclaiming a vaguely libertarian credo demanding less regulation, fewer taxes, more individual freedom, fewer individual responsibilities. This, in turn, leads to a society in which financial success is the litmus test for personal freedom and comfort.
The "off-line" society Katz talks about is trying to walk a tightrope between stifling engineering research -- which is undesirable -- and allowing technology to dictate our societal goals and means -- which is unsupportable. It has not "failed [us] and the larger society," but it is unwilling to abdicate its power and positions in favor of unchecked engineering and corporate control; this is a society that places law and legislation above individual ethical judgements and intuition, a society that demands accountability from its institutions that the commerce of engineering does not, and cannot, grant freely (vide both Microsoft and Napster). It is a society that represents the fifty percent of Americans who don't own computers as well as the ten percent that spends its entire workweek on the 'Net. And it is a society that we must work within, for if we try to circumvent its strictures, we will be punished.
We, as engineers, must come to realize that society is not software, speech is not a printf() statement, and development does not always mean progress. If we, as a group, cannot learn to work with those who are charged with ensuring the progress and safety of society, then the best we can hope for is a gradual expansion of statutory and case law to encompass changes in technology, leading eventually to the checking of the remarkable, and probably unsustainable, freedom of technology we enjoy today.
It always worries me when anyone begins to discuss a particular technology as a panacea to social ills. In the redundant and consequently meaningless words of a recent telecom ad campaign: "It's not the technology, it's what we do with it."
Many posters have already noted that the Internet as much potential for abuse as traditional publishing and broadcast media (though certainly the threat of cross-ownership is less). Others have asked if the 'Net has any importance the political mainstream -- after all, Jesse Ventura, once hailed as the "JFK of the Internet," was elected due to a slate of very good television ads and several important debate showings, not because of his e-mail lists. All in all, the Slashdot community seems to have a cautious view of the 'Net as a political "solution."
The most important fixes we can make to the system all exist offline (though, yes, the 'Net can be a powerful grassroots enabler), and few of them are truly revolutionary. Some examples:
Agitate for voter registration at the ballot box. Recent history shows that the states most flexible in their voting registration policies -- such as Minnesota! -- are also most likely to have higher and more spirited voter turnout.
Change the way Presidential debates are planned. The debate dates and formats are essentially chosen by the candidates, not the networks, and certainly not by the voters. Fix the number of debates (four or five would be a solid, and historically justifiable, choice), allow follow-up questions by the reporters (so the candidates can't present misleading assertions as pure fact), and let the TV networks choose moderators at their discretion. Ideally, we could go back to the "kitchen-table" debates CBS tried in the '60s, but that's as unlikely as James Dobson endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Change the primary schedule. The jousting between the states for primary primacy has created a situation in which candidates are forced to apply a massive amount of money in each state in a very brief period of time. The result? The candidates with the most money to blow in that time period get the most exposure and, consequently, the most votes.
Three simple ideas, all heavily debated in the literature, that haven't been addressed in a coordinated manner. Now, imagine if we could turn the energy of the Slashdot community to real-world political reformation....
Actually, as I understand it, the application, once denied by an Examiner, can be appealed before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and, from there, appealed to the Federal Circuit. This has been a more or less standard process since the Courts of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), the Federal Circuit's predecessor in this field, was established back in the '30s.
What this essentially means is that the USPTO potentially must defend itself in court for every patent not granted. Until recently (see below), the USPTO has been held to a very strict standard -- the "clearly erroneous" standard, or "court/court" review. This is a complex, and time-consuming activity that no doubt ties up a great deal of USPTO resources.
Now, a fairly recent Supreme Court decision, Dickinson v. Zurko, has ruled that a less-stringent "court/agency" review is proper for the review of patents. Agency decisions will not be overruled unless they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," "unsupported by substantial evidence," or otherwise in violation of civil law.
The court/agency review is one of the many "secret governments" within the American political system that successfully transfer political power from the general population to a very small set of elites in positions of public and private authority. Expect patent reviews to get even more secretive than they are now.
The Good news: The USPTO should now feel less-pressured to pass patents on the basis of an inevitable appeal.
The Bad news: It'll be harder to invalidate patents that aren't clearly in violation of 5 USC, Sec. 706 (2).
1. Regarding the Cost of Reproducibility and Open Source "A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price." (Stallman, Richard "Why Software Should Be Free" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shoul dbefree.html)
This is a particularly common argument amongst followers of Stallman's "all software must be free" dictum. It also displays an appalling lack of economic understanding (or an equally appalling willingness to disregard economics in favor of rabble-rousing). The refutation goes something like this: the marginal cost of a product is not the only input into a product's price. Any work -- software, audio track, movie, novel, etc. -- has a creation cost equal to the investment in capital goods, salaries, raw materials purchasing, foregone opportunity cost, and so on. This creation cost must be exceeded in order for the creator to turn a profit. In a free market with perfect information, there is no microeconomic incentive to create a product that will not recoup that profit. Stallman's later assertion that it's morally acceptable to add development costs on top of marginal costs bends the economics backwards and misses the point: the marginal cost of a product is secondary, not primary, to the sales price; the creation costs are spread out amongst the number of products expected to be sold.
2. A Consideration of the Notion of Software Agreements as Psychological Assault "Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.'' People who make such choices feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the importance of helping one's neighbors--thus public spirit suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of discouraging use of the program." (Vide Stallman)
This is a remarkable conjoining of two unrelated arguments: "Software agreements are bad" because "We should help each other."
Again, Stallman disregards the cost of producing software in favor of the cost of copying it. What he does not ask is the question: "Should a software developer be obliged to help a software user's neighbor?" In a world ruled by Stallman's precepts, software would have to be completely paid for by the first copy (in which case one can assume that, in most cases, the software would never be purchased at all).
3. On the Psychic Rewards of Software Development "Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, ``Will I be permitted to use it?'', his face falls, and he admits the answer is no. To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of it." (Vide Stallman)
Here Stallman ascribes his own personal views to other developers. When presented with the fact that many developers are not, in fact, discouraged by the fact that other people will pay for the software they develop, Stallman quickly claims that, yes, those developers say that, but they're either "ignor[ing]" the issue, or they're simply adopting a "pose."
This is an argument that requires no refutation, because it barely registers as an argument at all: Stallman cannot know what goes on in the minds of others, therefore the foundation of his argument is nonexistent.
Addendum: On Guns and Code Bertrand Meyer's ad hominem attack on Eric Raymond is unconscionable, and an appeal to base emotions in lieu of his otherwise quite sustainable arguments. Having said that, I find that I am of two minds regarding ESR's beliefs (which, by placing in public view, he has opened to public debate): on one hand, his Wagnerian paen to firearms is almost a parody of the most virulent NRA propaganda; on the other, it's hard for me to forget that Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested for essentially being poor minorities (Italians then being a despised underclass) who habitually carried firearms. As Italians and political anarchists, they had a fear -- quite understandable in light of later events -- of police power in America.
However, I do wish to turn that favorite Heinlein quote of the NRA around: an armed society is not a polite society, but only a polite society deserves to be an armed society.
Chalk up another one for "C'mon, gang -- let's put on a dot-com!" It's been said before, but I can't help but reiterate: why would anyone want to use this technology in the real world?
The peer and editor-reviewed printed word doesn't have enough clarity and depth, so here's a list of links! That TV show doesn't have enough action, so here's a link to a Flash animation! And all you have to do is drag your magazine/newspaper/big-screen TV over to that Dell on your desk!
Thanks, guys -- I really didn't have anything better to do with my serial or USB port. This kind of computing is invasive, not pervasive.
Sounds like a standard systems disclaimer to me. Not many employers use keystroke monitoring on a wide scale, just because of the space requirements and implementation difficulties. (Now, think of a keystroke capture app that could, in real-time, detect unauthorized behavior -- *that's* an idea! A rather Orwellian idea, but an idea, nonetheless.)
Such disclaimers are very common in the corporate world. Prior case law has struck down computer crime prosecutions simply because the systems in question did not clearly lay out access rules and regulations. Therefore, most corporate servers -- and, increasingly, corporate workstations -- display this boilerplate in order to support prosecutions against those engaged in unauthorized access.
Now, as the Larry Wall case shows, the line between "authorized" and "unauthorized" is very thin indeed. Don't forget to ask for your manager's approval before setting up that e-mail proxy....
It seems to me that reverse-engineering iOpeners -- or any other "razor and blades" network hardware -- is a very dangerous proposition for *nix advocates in the long run.
Thin clients have an interesting effect on Windows sales -- they potentially remove Microsoft from both the workstation and server market. After all, whenever anyone uses a thin client to access a network resource, they are largely unconcerned with where the data is coming from -- only that it's there (stability) and available (performance). Any time stability and performance are of greater importance than interoperability with Windows and ease of administration, Unix and Linux are more likely to be used as servers.
If we successfully drive these companies out of business so we can save a couple of hundred bucks on Intel hardware, we open a crack for Microsoft to get in and stay in, at the expense of the average user, and at the expense of *nix.
Note: For those who missed the actual chat, we present this transcript in the interest of clarity and historical accuracy.
YAHOMUSIK: All right, everyone -- here's who you've been waiting for: Metallica!
james_metallica: I'd like to thank everyone for joining us on this online chat.
lars_metallica: I think this will be a good chance for us to clear the air regarding our recent lawsuit against Napster.
james_metallica: I'd also like to thank everyone for joining YAHO-chat, and providing your full names, addresses, e-mails, and phone numbers.
lars_metallica: And, to those of you who asked about that checkbox that said you agree to be interpleaded -- don't worry about it.
james_metallica: Yeah, you'll find out soon enough.
YAHOMUSIK: Okay, then, let's get to the questions!
shadowfan: It seems to me that going after Napster is one thing, but going after individuals is another. Do you guys even believe in privacy?
james_metallica: Hey -- privacy rules! We strongly believe in privacy, even if it has to be enforced by security cameras, gates and armed thugs rented from Pinkerton.
lars_metallica: Privacy isn't free, kid. I'm rich; I know these things.
realfan: What about streaming media, like RealPlayer?
lars_metallica: We'd love to find a civil challenge to take them down, as well.
james_metallica: Absolutely. I mean, the Internet is a broadcast medium, and it directly competes with radio. Radio licensing -- and DJ kickbacks -- are a major secondary revenue stream for us!
alienatedfan: You say this lawsuit's not about money. Why not withdraw the suit and file criminal charges?
lars_metallica: What? Of course it's about money! My god, man, do you think we're *artists*? Do you really think that we write lines like "I dub thee unforgiven" with a straight face? This isn't exactly Nabakov here, buddy. Black leather ain't free.
james_metallica: Let's not lose sight of the fact that Metallica is a corporate entity. We retain the right to control our intellectual property.
lars_metallica: Intellectual?
james_metallica: In the purely legal sense, of course.
lars_metallica: Of course.
lemmingfan: Metlica RULES! You guys KICK ASSS! Metalixa loves there fans
lars_metallica: Thanks for the support, kid.
james_metallica: Don't forget that we're hosting a very special "Pop-Up Videos" on VH-1 this coming Saturday!
technofan: Has anyone in the band ever used Napster?
james_metallica: Actually, no. We don't use the Internet. Our secretaries handle our e- mail correspondence for us.
lars_metallica: That's not entirely true. Howard King -- who has purchased a 15% stake in Metallica -- has used Napster in conjunction with a very qualified evidence presentation firm. We'll be using the results as an exhibit in the upcoming civil trial.
james_metallica: That's correct. As a voting member of the board, Mr. King is technically a member of the band.
lars_metallica: Though you won't see him on stage! LOL! RTFM! AOL! POP3! CORBA!
slashfan: You've agreed to an interview on Slashdot. Do you think you could change your mind -- and your legal strategy -- after hearing the questions from the/. community?
lars_metallica: Yeah. Right. What are they going to threaten us with, five thousand Anonymous Cowards bitching about how they're going to buy the next Shawn Colvin album instead of ours?
james_metallica Besides, just *try* to quote us in "Voices From the Hellmouth!"
rabidfan: I love your music, but I first really heard you on an MP3. Do you agree that there's a place for MP3s in the future?
lars_metallica: I'm sure there's a place for them, but we need to work on the security arrangements -- especially when it comes to pay-for-play. If this means that the courts are going to have to reaffirm the principle that an abstract entity can be reified into a physical item -- such as us "owning" the music represented by the magnetic field on the hard drive you own -- then so be it.
james_metallica: Our lawyer, Howard King, is working on a legal theory that states that we even own the particular electrochemical signature generated by your mind as a result of listening to our music.
lars_metallica: It's based on the concept of adverse possession. Essentially, we argue that our fans weren't using their minds anyway....
james_metallica: I think that's enough, Lars.
metalikafan: I use Napster, AND I buy your albums.
james_metallica: We appreciate that, and if you'll send us your full name, address, social security number, and anything else Napster can use to identify you, we'll reward you suitably.
scaredfan: What should I do with all my downloaded Metallica MP3s? Delete them?
lars_metallica: It really doesn't matter. The FBI has an excellent record of retrieving data from overwritten magnetic media.
whoisthatfan: I let a friend, uh, borrow an MP3 of one of your songs.
lars_metallica: "Silent Lucidity," right? Don't worry about it, Mister Donny Dougle of 1535 Sunshine Way, Irvine, CA. Our lawyer, Howard King, will be issuing a subpoena tomorrow.
james_metallica: Actually, Lars, "Silent Lucidity" is a Queensryche song.
lars_metallica: It is?
james_metallica: I'm pretty sure.
lars_metallica: Yeah, but didn't we buy them out last year?
james_metallica: No, you're thinking of Ratt -- that was a LBO so we could get their songs and sell off the rest.
lars_metallica: Then what about KISS?
james_metallica: That was a stock swap. Jesus, man, don't you ever read the documents you sign?
lars_metallica: Nah, I'm more of a soft-strategy guy. Sales and marketing.
YAHOMUSIK: Well, that's about all the time we have today! Thanks, Metallica!
lars_metallica: Thanks, everyone!
james_metallica: And don't forget, this chat is (C) 2000 Metallica, Inc. Don't even think about saving it to disk or posting it on the Internet!
lars_metallica: You guys rule! Compassionate conservatism rocks!
AOL set work hours, conducted training, and defined the methods by which the "volunteers" were to do their jobs (including internal company paperwork). The observers were given payment in the form of valuable AOL accounts.
In other words, this is something that would set off alarms in the minds of most lawyers (of which profession I am most assuredly not a member), as well as the IRS and FTC. AOL observers are a very different beast than/. contributors, MiningCo guides, Linux developers, Habitat for Humanity homebuilders, and the like. In fact, as far as I can tell, they seem more like front-line tech support than "community leaders."
The argument that all employers and employees have the right to freely contract regardless of the terms -- so-called "Lochnerian free-contract theory" -- has been largely discredited since that Supreme Court decision. When an employer takes on an employee, he assumes certain duties (payroll taxes, minimum wages, family and sick leave, liabilities for negligence, etc.) that cannot be waived by an instrument between employee and employer. By setting minimum standards, employers are prevented from exploiting workers by way of coercive contracts.
I do agree that AOL observers are in an ethical sense hardly the same thing as migrant farm workers or even Microsoft temps. In fact, I don't believe that AOL acted to knowingly deny benefits to employees. Nonetheless, if AOL availed itself of the services of part-time employees, it cannot simply ask them to waive their rights under employment laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I have trouble believing that the Nobel nomination committee will accept your submission.
When Linux Mag notes that Linux is more a "development methodology" than an operating system, Wladawksy-Berger neatly sidesteps the issue, merely responding that it's important that developers can easily port their apps between Linuces. (He does add a bit of abstract and highly-qualified praise for community-based development.) Truth is, IBM won't change their internal design lifecycles that easily, and, for the most part, I don't think they need to.
....
Nonetheless. This is exactly what Linux needs: a high-end, organizationally-driven addition that will help make Linux a viable choice in the enterprise arena. For the first time, I'm starting to consider Linux a real competitor for my business. I'm not ready to turn in my E10K yet, but
These words, which so well fit America in the new millenium, were penned by Coleridge in the prefatory years before the Victorian age. It was an age where, despite the great feats of engineering that marked the Industrial Age, there was a persistent "anti-intellectualism," an "association of learning with idle gentlemen or lazy academics who contribute[d] nothing to the needs of the world." (Houghton's "The Victorian Frame of Mind," which also supplied the above Coleridge quotation.) The father of the great British politician Gladstone, like many other wealthy men of the time, considered education destructive to the commercial impulse (thankfully, the future Prime Minister was not the inheritor of his father's business enterprises).
As strange as it may seem, the culture of networked computing that exists today is also highly anti-intellectual, dedicated to the acquisition of venture capital and stock options, engineering "feats" like Napster, to short "news" items culled without context, three-sentence Slashdot commentaries, and, need I say it, the wink-and-a-nod innuendo of columnists like Drudge. Our interest in science is limited to the practical, or possibly practical, experiments reported in Slashdot, Discover, or The New Scientist; advances in the "impractical" sciences languish in obscurity, since they offer no practical benefits or methods of securing venture capital. And humanities and the liberal arts, of course, are, at best, beside the point and at worst a distraction; technology, as Wired, Napster, and countless others have drummed into our ears, must drive society, rather than the other way 'round.
With a few -- very few -- exceptions (Knuth leaps to mind), programmers are journeymen and skilled labor, not logicians, mathematicians and scientists of any note. We certainly -- bereft of any education or experience in politics, history, theology and philosophy -- are not qualified to set the course our societies must sail. Without any mooring in traditional political thought, and possessed of success in a world that has afforded great economic benefit to our class, most of us gravitate to the smug selfishness of Ayn Rand, proclaiming a vaguely libertarian credo demanding less regulation, fewer taxes, more individual freedom, fewer individual responsibilities. This, in turn, leads to a society in which financial success is the litmus test for personal freedom and comfort.
The "off-line" society Katz talks about is trying to walk a tightrope between stifling engineering research -- which is undesirable -- and allowing technology to dictate our societal goals and means -- which is unsupportable. It has not "failed [us] and the larger society," but it is unwilling to abdicate its power and positions in favor of unchecked engineering and corporate control; this is a society that places law and legislation above individual ethical judgements and intuition, a society that demands accountability from its institutions that the commerce of engineering does not, and cannot, grant freely (vide both Microsoft and Napster). It is a society that represents the fifty percent of Americans who don't own computers as well as the ten percent that spends its entire workweek on the 'Net. And it is a society that we must work within, for if we try to circumvent its strictures, we will be punished.
We, as engineers, must come to realize that society is not software, speech is not a printf() statement, and development does not always mean progress. If we, as a group, cannot learn to work with those who are charged with ensuring the progress and safety of society, then the best we can hope for is a gradual expansion of statutory and case law to encompass changes in technology, leading eventually to the checking of the remarkable, and probably unsustainable, freedom of technology we enjoy today.
The worst possibility is that we might win.
Many posters have already noted that the Internet as much potential for abuse as traditional publishing and broadcast media (though certainly the threat of cross-ownership is less). Others have asked if the 'Net has any importance the political mainstream -- after all, Jesse Ventura, once hailed as the "JFK of the Internet," was elected due to a slate of very good television ads and several important debate showings, not because of his e-mail lists. All in all, the Slashdot community seems to have a cautious view of the 'Net as a political "solution."
The most important fixes we can make to the system all exist offline (though, yes, the 'Net can be a powerful grassroots enabler), and few of them are truly revolutionary. Some examples:
Agitate for voter registration at the ballot box. Recent history shows that the states most flexible in their voting registration policies -- such as Minnesota! -- are also most likely to have higher and more spirited voter turnout.
Change the way Presidential debates are planned. The debate dates and formats are essentially chosen by the candidates, not the networks, and certainly not by the voters. Fix the number of debates (four or five would be a solid, and historically justifiable, choice), allow follow-up questions by the reporters (so the candidates can't present misleading assertions as pure fact), and let the TV networks choose moderators at their discretion. Ideally, we could go back to the "kitchen-table" debates CBS tried in the '60s, but that's as unlikely as James Dobson endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Change the primary schedule. The jousting between the states for primary primacy has created a situation in which candidates are forced to apply a massive amount of money in each state in a very brief period of time. The result? The candidates with the most money to blow in that time period get the most exposure and, consequently, the most votes.
Three simple ideas, all heavily debated in the literature, that haven't been addressed in a coordinated manner. Now, imagine if we could turn the energy of the Slashdot community to real-world political reformation....
What this essentially means is that the USPTO potentially must defend itself in court for every patent not granted. Until recently (see below), the USPTO has been held to a very strict standard -- the "clearly erroneous" standard, or "court/court" review. This is a complex, and time-consuming activity that no doubt ties up a great deal of USPTO resources.
Now, a fairly recent Supreme Court decision, Dickinson v. Zurko, has ruled that a less-stringent "court/agency" review is proper for the review of patents. Agency decisions will not be overruled unless they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," "unsupported by substantial evidence," or otherwise in violation of civil law.
The court/agency review is one of the many "secret governments" within the American political system that successfully transfer political power from the general population to a very small set of elites in positions of public and private authority. Expect patent reviews to get even more secretive than they are now.
The Good news: The USPTO should now feel less-pressured to pass patents on the basis of an inevitable appeal.
The Bad news: It'll be harder to invalidate patents that aren't clearly in violation of 5 USC, Sec. 706 (2).
1. Regarding the Cost of Reproducibility and Open Source
"A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price." (Stallman, Richard "Why Software Should Be Free" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shoul dbefree.html)
This is a particularly common argument amongst followers of Stallman's "all software must be free" dictum. It also displays an appalling lack of economic understanding (or an equally appalling willingness to disregard economics in favor of rabble-rousing). The refutation goes something like this: the marginal cost of a product is not the only input into a product's price. Any work -- software, audio track, movie, novel, etc. -- has a creation cost equal to the investment in capital goods, salaries, raw materials purchasing, foregone opportunity cost, and so on. This creation cost must be exceeded in order for the creator to turn a profit. In a free market with perfect information, there is no microeconomic incentive to create a product that will not recoup that profit. Stallman's later assertion that it's morally acceptable to add development costs on top of marginal costs bends the economics backwards and misses the point: the marginal cost of a product is secondary, not primary, to the sales price; the creation costs are spread out amongst the number of products expected to be sold.
2. A Consideration of the Notion of Software Agreements as Psychological Assault
"Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.'' People who make such choices feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the importance of helping one's neighbors--thus public spirit suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of discouraging use of the program." (Vide Stallman)
This is a remarkable conjoining of two unrelated arguments: "Software agreements are bad" because "We should help each other."
Again, Stallman disregards the cost of producing software in favor of the cost of copying it. What he does not ask is the question: "Should a software developer be obliged to help a software user's neighbor?" In a world ruled by Stallman's precepts, software would have to be completely paid for by the first copy (in which case one can assume that, in most cases, the software would never be purchased at all).
3. On the Psychic Rewards of Software Development
"Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, ``Will I be permitted to use it?'', his face falls, and he admits the answer is no. To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of it." (Vide Stallman)
Here Stallman ascribes his own personal views to other developers. When presented with the fact that many developers are not, in fact, discouraged by the fact that other people will pay for the software they develop, Stallman quickly claims that, yes, those developers say that, but they're either "ignor[ing]" the issue, or they're simply adopting a "pose."
This is an argument that requires no refutation, because it barely registers as an argument at all: Stallman cannot know what goes on in the minds of others, therefore the foundation of his argument is nonexistent.
Addendum: On Guns and Code
Bertrand Meyer's ad hominem attack on Eric Raymond is unconscionable, and an appeal to base emotions in lieu of his otherwise quite sustainable arguments. Having said that, I find that I am of two minds regarding ESR's beliefs (which, by placing in public view, he has opened to public debate): on one hand, his Wagnerian paen to firearms is almost a parody of the most virulent NRA propaganda; on the other, it's hard for me to forget that Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested for essentially being poor minorities (Italians then being a despised underclass) who habitually carried firearms. As Italians and political anarchists, they had a fear -- quite understandable in light of later events -- of police power in America.
However, I do wish to turn that favorite Heinlein quote of the NRA around: an armed society is not a polite society, but only a polite society deserves to be an armed society.
The peer and editor-reviewed printed word doesn't have enough clarity and depth, so here's a list of links! That TV show doesn't have enough action, so here's a link to a Flash animation! And all you have to do is drag your magazine/newspaper/big-screen TV over to that Dell on your desk!
Thanks, guys -- I really didn't have anything better to do with my serial or USB port. This kind of computing is invasive, not pervasive.
Sounds like a standard systems disclaimer to me. Not many employers use keystroke monitoring on a wide scale, just because of the space requirements and implementation difficulties. (Now, think of a keystroke capture app that could, in real-time, detect unauthorized behavior -- *that's* an idea! A rather Orwellian idea, but an idea, nonetheless.)
Such disclaimers are very common in the corporate world. Prior case law has struck down computer crime prosecutions simply because the systems in question did not clearly lay out access rules and regulations. Therefore, most corporate servers -- and, increasingly, corporate workstations -- display this boilerplate in order to support prosecutions against those engaged in unauthorized access.
Now, as the Larry Wall case shows, the line between "authorized" and "unauthorized" is very thin indeed. Don't forget to ask for your manager's approval before setting up that e-mail proxy....
It seems to me that reverse-engineering iOpeners -- or any other "razor and blades" network hardware -- is a very dangerous proposition for *nix advocates in the long run.
Thin clients have an interesting effect on Windows sales -- they potentially remove Microsoft from both the workstation and server market. After all, whenever anyone uses a thin client to access a network resource, they are largely unconcerned with where the data is coming from -- only that it's there (stability) and available (performance). Any time stability and performance are of greater importance than interoperability with Windows and ease of administration, Unix and Linux are more likely to be used as servers.
If we successfully drive these companies out of business so we can save a couple of hundred bucks on Intel hardware, we open a crack for Microsoft to get in and stay in, at the expense of the average user, and at the expense of *nix.
Note: For those who missed the actual chat, we present this transcript in the interest of clarity and historical accuracy.
/. community?
YAHOMUSIK:
All right, everyone -- here's who you've been waiting for: Metallica!
james_metallica:
I'd like to thank everyone for joining us on this online chat.
lars_metallica:
I think this will be a good chance for us to clear the air regarding our recent lawsuit against Napster.
james_metallica:
I'd also like to thank everyone for joining YAHO-chat, and providing your full names, addresses, e-mails, and phone numbers.
lars_metallica:
And, to those of you who asked about that checkbox that said you agree to be interpleaded -- don't worry about it.
james_metallica:
Yeah, you'll find out soon enough.
YAHOMUSIK:
Okay, then, let's get to the questions!
shadowfan:
It seems to me that going after Napster is one thing, but going after individuals is another. Do you guys even believe in privacy?
james_metallica:
Hey -- privacy rules! We strongly believe in privacy, even if it has to be enforced by security cameras, gates and armed thugs rented from Pinkerton.
lars_metallica:
Privacy isn't free, kid. I'm rich; I know these things.
realfan:
What about streaming media, like RealPlayer?
lars_metallica:
We'd love to find a civil challenge to take them down, as well.
james_metallica:
Absolutely. I mean, the Internet is a broadcast medium, and it directly competes with radio. Radio licensing -- and DJ kickbacks -- are a major secondary revenue stream for us!
alienatedfan:
You say this lawsuit's not about money. Why not withdraw the suit and file criminal charges?
lars_metallica:
What? Of course it's about money! My god, man, do you think we're *artists*? Do you really think that we write lines like "I dub thee unforgiven" with a straight face? This isn't exactly Nabakov here, buddy. Black leather ain't free.
james_metallica:
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Metallica is a corporate entity. We retain the right to control our intellectual property.
lars_metallica:
Intellectual?
james_metallica:
In the purely legal sense, of course.
lars_metallica:
Of course.
lemmingfan:
Metlica RULES! You guys KICK ASSS! Metalixa loves there fans
lars_metallica:
Thanks for the support, kid.
james_metallica:
Don't forget that we're hosting a very special "Pop-Up Videos" on VH-1 this coming Saturday!
technofan:
Has anyone in the band ever used Napster?
james_metallica:
Actually, no. We don't use the Internet. Our secretaries handle our e- mail correspondence for us.
lars_metallica:
That's not entirely true. Howard King -- who has purchased a 15% stake in Metallica -- has used Napster in conjunction with a very qualified evidence presentation firm. We'll be using the results as an exhibit in the upcoming civil trial.
james_metallica:
That's correct. As a voting member of the board, Mr. King is technically a member of the band.
lars_metallica:
Though you won't see him on stage! LOL! RTFM! AOL! POP3! CORBA!
slashfan:
You've agreed to an interview on Slashdot. Do you think you could change your mind -- and your legal strategy -- after hearing the questions from the
lars_metallica:
Yeah. Right. What are they going to threaten us with, five thousand Anonymous Cowards bitching about how they're going to buy the next Shawn Colvin album instead of ours?
james_metallica
Besides, just *try* to quote us in "Voices From the Hellmouth!"
rabidfan:
I love your music, but I first really heard you on an MP3. Do you agree that there's a place for MP3s in the future?
lars_metallica:
I'm sure there's a place for them, but we need to work on the security arrangements -- especially when it comes to pay-for-play. If this means that the courts are going to have to reaffirm the principle that an abstract entity can be reified into a physical item -- such as us "owning" the music represented by the magnetic field on the hard drive you own -- then so be it.
james_metallica:
Our lawyer, Howard King, is working on a legal theory that states that we even own the particular electrochemical signature generated by your mind as a result of listening to our music.
lars_metallica:
It's based on the concept of adverse possession. Essentially, we argue that our fans weren't using their minds anyway....
james_metallica:
I think that's enough, Lars.
metalikafan:
I use Napster, AND I buy your albums.
james_metallica:
We appreciate that, and if you'll send us your full name, address, social security number, and anything else Napster can use to identify you, we'll reward you suitably.
scaredfan:
What should I do with all my downloaded Metallica MP3s? Delete them?
lars_metallica:
It really doesn't matter. The FBI has an excellent record of retrieving data from overwritten magnetic media.
whoisthatfan:
I let a friend, uh, borrow an MP3 of one of your songs.
lars_metallica:
"Silent Lucidity," right? Don't worry about it, Mister Donny Dougle of 1535 Sunshine Way, Irvine, CA. Our lawyer, Howard King, will be issuing a subpoena tomorrow.
james_metallica:
Actually, Lars, "Silent Lucidity" is a Queensryche song.
lars_metallica:
It is?
james_metallica:
I'm pretty sure.
lars_metallica:
Yeah, but didn't we buy them out last year?
james_metallica:
No, you're thinking of Ratt -- that was a LBO so we could get their songs and sell off the rest.
lars_metallica:
Then what about KISS?
james_metallica:
That was a stock swap. Jesus, man, don't you ever read the documents you sign?
lars_metallica:
Nah, I'm more of a soft-strategy guy. Sales and marketing.
YAHOMUSIK:
Well, that's about all the time we have today! Thanks, Metallica!
lars_metallica:
Thanks, everyone!
james_metallica:
And don't forget, this chat is (C) 2000 Metallica, Inc. Don't even think about saving it to disk or posting it on the Internet!
lars_metallica:
You guys rule! Compassionate conservatism rocks!
AOL set work hours, conducted training, and defined the methods by which the "volunteers" were to do their jobs (including internal company paperwork). The observers were given payment in the form of valuable AOL accounts.
In other words, this is something that would set off alarms in the minds of most lawyers (of which profession I am most assuredly not a member), as well as the IRS and FTC. AOL observers are a very different beast than /. contributors, MiningCo guides, Linux developers, Habitat for Humanity homebuilders, and the like. In fact, as far as I can tell, they seem more like front-line tech support than "community leaders."
The argument that all employers and employees have the right to freely contract regardless of the terms -- so-called "Lochnerian free-contract theory" -- has been largely discredited since that Supreme Court decision. When an employer takes on an employee, he assumes certain duties (payroll taxes, minimum wages, family and sick leave, liabilities for negligence, etc.) that cannot be waived by an instrument between employee and employer. By setting minimum standards, employers are prevented from exploiting workers by way of coercive contracts.
I do agree that AOL observers are in an ethical sense hardly the same thing as migrant farm workers or even Microsoft temps. In fact, I don't believe that AOL acted to knowingly deny benefits to employees. Nonetheless, if AOL availed itself of the services of part-time employees, it cannot simply ask them to waive their rights under employment laws.