Re: Hey, Y'all, check out my new improved "Free Software Research Paper Project" web site!
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> "R. Brock Lynn" <brock@nettronix.net> writes:
>
> > Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> > > * stressing sharing vs hoarding as the fundamental issue is
> > > reductionistic; it flattens other problems and issues, such as
> > > economic issues, social issues, etc.
>
> > Sure there are exceptions. Notice I did not say absolute sharing and
> > no hoarding... but more sharing than hoarding in the most general
> > sense is better for all of us.
> >
> > If you can expound on your reasons behind why the reverse might be
> > better, I'd like to hear them.
>
> Um, no, you misread me. I object to the two sides of the picture
> being portrayed as "sharing" versus "hoarding". Sure, for slogans or
> sound bytes, that's a great dichotomy; but for reasoned debate, it's a
> straw man.
Hmm, I disagree. Sometimes one loses sight of the forest for all the trees. I
believe I'm seeing a bigger picture, whilst you are more focused on a few groups
of trees. Try to expand your vision, is what I ask of you. I'm not being Naive.
I have seen how software businesses work on a small scale, but now it's time to
see how the whole software "economy" can work on a grand scale.
Free Software is the best way for most, but not all.
I firmly believe that.
And you really can't argue with a FEELING.
FEELINGS are inherently "illogical" and "unprovable", except maybe in a sort of
"emotional logic" system.
> Personally, I think the issue is "programming for hack value, fun, or
> altruism"" versus "programming for cash".
Yes, but by writing, and providing service and support for Free Software, I
FIRMLY believe that THAT WILL bring you more money in the long run, to those
skilled in doing those things, than can writing and providing service and
support for proprietary software systems. BUT... of course only time will tell.
But I certainly have a very STRONG FEELING that I'm thinking in the right
direction.
> Now, put in those terms,
> it's a little more clear why there are probably 200 commercial
> programmers for every free one. In fact, it starts to be difficult to
> try to explain to a programmer why they *shouldn't* be coding for cash
> (which seems to be RMS' issue -- "no code for cash"). Personally, I
> like to find a balance. If a client wants to pay for code to be
> written, great. If I can convince the client to free the source for
> all, even better (and there are benefits for many situations to this).
> However, in some cases, the client would rather "hoard" the code and
> slap a non-disclosure on me as well.
Well, as they will probably find in the longer term, trying to restrict others
from using their software, THEY will get HURT more than benefit from this
behavior pattern. And it will then get so painful on down the road, that they
will be forced to change to a "Free Software" method. It's only the natural best
thing to do, and most beneficial to all parties, including the software
developers and the people who paid to have the software developed. Sometimes
peoples' hard headedness can only be corrected by the school of hard knocks...
(I know, I'm pretty hard headed myself. And the school of hard knocks is indeed
a very effective teacher.) but sometimes that's just the way it goes. So be it.
But I say that we try to EDUCATE all affected parties of software technology
that "GPL Free Software" is the BEST way to go for most, but not all software
projects. One exception would be software developed for military use that has
more strictly military use, and very little use by the general populace. In that
case it would be of National Security Concern to keep such software development
projects under wraps. Sometimes you have to make trade offs in the fight for
Freedom and Human Rights. Sometimes you MUST use FORCE, when you, or the noble
values you believe in are threatened. Power Hungry people whose sole goals in
life are to strive for more an more power and wealth, strictly as ends in
themselves MUST BE KEPT IN CHECK... for all our sakes.
"And the meek shall inherit the Earth." :)
> I know what I'm talking about -- this is reality. I've been
> programming and supervising programing in the commercial (and
> academic) context for over 10 years now.
Yes, I don't doubt you have much experience... but only in "your neck of the
woods". I feel like I'm seeing things from a bit more of a grander perspective,
and you are allowing the local trees to blind your view of the forest overall.
All I ask is for you to stretch yourself, let yourself grow just a little bit
more. Allow yourself to be just a little more open minded. Please try! That's
*all* I ask.
> So you can see, when people start getting all frothy about "sharing
> versus hoarding", that's all well and good, it just doesn't speak to
> the reality of the actual world.
> Personally, I think the client has the right to expect certain terms
> on their code. Some code represents a business edge -- they can't
> free that logic and expect to retain their business edge. That's
> capitalism.
Capitalism as it stands today is doomed to be replaced by a more "enlightened,
socialistic style capitalism" where single proprietors and owners will be
replaced by groups of owners. No, not in the sense of stock holders and boards,
but a more truly SOCIAL SYSTEM, where all people affected by the products of a
certain "business" can have a say as to how it will operate in a more democratic
way. Perhaps by allowing "dollars" to be used as votes is NOT ENOUGH... because
sometimes the best ideas come from POOR PEOPLE, and not always from RICH
PEOPLE... Let the BEST LEADERS do the leading... and managing, not the least.
Just because you have more money then everyone else doesn't necessarily mean you
are a better manager than everybody else. This is a fundamental FLAW of
capitalism as most people in the world understand it today. We need to wake up
and smell the coffee, and start a trend of changing for the better. Leadership
positions should be based on MERIT, and not through the POWER OF WEALTH. When
the blind lead the blind, we'll all end up in a ditch. I really don't want that
to happen. Let the most qualified people, who also have the strongest content of
character.
I do agree with the philosophy of the Capitalist System as it stands today, that
a system of economics can only work when driven by self interest motives... but
we need to realize that we as an interconnected interdependent society of people
ARE AS A COLLECTIVE, AN ENTITY THAT IS LIVING ON A LARGER AND GRANDER SCALE. AND
*IT* TOO WANTS TO SURVIVE, PROSPER, AND GROW AS A SYSTEM. It want's to look
after its own self interest as a whole. And if the individual parts that make it
up begin to wake up and realize this interconnection and INTERDEPENDENCE, then
the society as a whole can start having its needs met and its self interest as a
whole taken care of... is this too mind boggling to comprehend??? Is it too
radical??? I dare say not, it is simply evolution. And society as a whole wants
to survive, grow, and evolve into something that has even more strength,
survival, and prosperity prospects for the future. Society as a larger organism
wants to ensure its own survival... Of course it doesn't necessarily have to
happen that way... There are numerous records of ancient animals going extinct,
and making way for more hearty and robust animals to take their place... And
this could happen to our "society" animal as well. But It'd be a shame for that
to happen. Let's work together to help prevent our extinction, and to promote
our survival, and prosperity... and ultimate happiness.
> > > * trying to find a basis for free software in science and physics is
> > > not really going to get you far; it's really a social and legal
> > > issue (intellectual property) which is at stake
>
> > I disagree. Physics at the root, attempts to understand nature in a
> > mathematical way. But mathematics is just another form of language,
> > or communication. I think the concept of Entropy, or the Second Law
> > of Thermodynamics applies to Free Software in its effects to society
> > at large. Lower localized entropy is what we are striving for on a
> > most general level. Tighter, better code that does more than not so
> > organized, and well thought out code is but one example of low
> > localized entropy. This is what we want.
>
> > If you disagree, I'd like to hear your comments. I'd love for you to
> > prove me wrong. I don't assert that I'm always right... just that I
> > want to strive towards the truth. If anyone knows more of the
> > "Truth"[tm] than I, then let him come forward and enlighten the rest
> > of us... please!
>
> This isn't physics, this is human behavior. I can't "prove" anything.
> I can only parley my experience and personal analysis.
You don't think that if a law of physics were changed slightly, or even a simple
"physical constant" like the gravitation constant "G", or the Coulomb Constant
"C" were altered just lightly it wouldn't affect human behavior??? I dare you to
punch in a few numbers into the equations in any ol' physics text laying around
and then calculate a few simple mechanics numbers based on Richard Feynman's
Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). I think you will be shocked and a bit surprised
at how intricately linked physics is to human, and animal behavior...
And genetic feature expression is affected by the chemical and mechanical
structure of Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) and Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).
All of chemistry as we know it today is summed up neatly in a little package of
physical equations called Quantum ElectroDynamics, or QED. Richard Feynman was
awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on that theories, and in fact that theory is
the most rigorously tested and most accurate physical theory that has every been
produced in the entire body of physical law exploration, since the dawn or
recorded history. No other theory of physics comes closer to predicting actual
physical phenomena as accurately as QED. Some may be more precise, but precision
!= accuracy. :)
> For one, I don't think it's necessarily true that open source is
> "tight" -- more likely, you could say it often suffers from severe
> feature creap. Nor is free software necessarily more organized or
> thought out.
>
> Ok, so all that aside, your point is that free software strives for
> lower entropy. How is that different from what Oracle, Corp. strives
> after? Both are just organizations -- one bonded by community or
> Lockean Land Tithe Theory or whatever theory you subscribe to, and the
> other bonded by economic motives.
Hmm, you are again letting your view of the forest be blocked by a few trees.
But you are beginning to see. Take your airplane just a few thousand feet higher
in altitude and then have a look down at the geometric shapes, and structure
below. It's a breathtaking sight to behold... Not only will you see and realize
this connection on a higher level, you just might be able to FEEL it. It's an
awesome feeling. I assure you.
> Please, guys, lets not revert to utilitarianism. Does anyone aside
> from myself remember the last 30 years of sociology, social theory,
> political theory, economics, and philosophy?
>
> [from your example]
>
> > He will even go so far as to allow each individual programmer retain
> > full copyright to each individually written piece of code, so long
> > as that code is then licensed for use under the GPL. (there are some
> > interesting concepts surrounding how this can be done most
> > effectively and legally) Basically GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS
> > DUE. And you will reap the benefits of EGOBOO. This also Allows the
> > company to "cover its A$$" if the employee decides to leave, and
> > take his code with him... The original company is given license to
> > still use it, whether he stays or leaves! Feel the power of the GPL!
> > And NDA's will be a thing of the past for many things and in many
> > areas once the GPL really catches on! (am I oversimplifying?)
>
> The only thing I object to in this argument is the pure naivety of it.
> Suppose the software expresses a "unique business advantage". In that
> case, freeing it would be lunacy.
Again, I think you only think it's naive because you haven't considered all
angles of all the surrounding issues. Keep going... You just may get there.
don't let the "current state of affairs" of our current society to blind you
from what CAN be achieved for the future.
The simplest solution is usually the "right" solution.
> > Tell them to write up a first "system" if you will, that is just
> > polished enough to attract attention. Then spread it far and wide...
> >
> > The company will make *very little* money on the distribution
> > front. It will plan to make most if not all of it's "Bread 'n'
> > Butter" from sales of service and support contracts to large and
> > medium sized businesses that have a need for software systems that
> > do "Y" very well.
>
> Yeah, well, that's fine. In fact, that was the rationale behind my
> company freeing onShore TimeSheet. Unfortunately, most companies are
> still geared towards revenue generated from selling licenses. In that
> context, you can't pitch GPL.
You can if their businesses start hurting from technical competition from Free
Software. Free Software will win hands down in the long term, leaving in the
dust most but probably not all, proprietary software development methods.
I have a term for this: "Free Software Steamroller"
Get onboard, or get out of the way, 'cause we're coming though, and nothing can
stop us, except maybe if we all run out of positive vision, and optimistic
energy or fuel.
> > I reiterate, "THE GPL IS *GOOD* FOR SOFTWARE BUSINESSES, AND THE
> > SOFTWARE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE." I will laugh in your face if you
> > think otherwise... Well, ok, let me get off my soap box. Actually, I
> > will take very respectfully any comments, suggestions, or arguments
> > to the contrary.
> See the cases above. You are simply ignoring all revenue from selling
> licenses. This is where ISV (independant software vendors) make the
> bread and butter. I don't think you could walk in and convince either
> the CEO or the investors that a support/service model has the profit
> potential of licenses on a "killer app".
Maybe I can't... If they choose to be hardheaded about being lost in a nice and
cozy patch of forest... But eventually that nice little cozy patch of forest
will get bulldozed by free software, and they will be without homes... and will
have to civilize themselves to live in a more structured and interdependent
world, where Free Software will reign supreme. Thank you, drive through.
> You really should take up this discussion at the FSB (free software
> business) list; a very good, well-balanced, knowledgable list.
Interesting, what's the address to subscribe and such?
--Brock Lynn
--------------------- PGP key ID: FED76A3D <brock@cyberdude.com> 4 / 5 / 1999
__ _ Debian GNU R. Brock Lynn <brock@nettronix.net>
/ /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ http://www.debian.org/ irc.openprojects.net
/ / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / 'Free Software'
/ /__| | | | | |_| |> < Remember that's "Free" as in Freedom, not "Free" as
\____/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ in price! Debian's the Greatest!
Reply to: