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.' "

Problem

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.

And now the fun begins

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

!!!

In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justifications. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects.--Karl Marx

(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.

We don't need no steenkin' bureaucracies.

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.

Influence peddling

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.

communism, academia, whatever

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.