Open Source Could Learn from Capitalism 385
ukhackster writes to tell us that Sun's Simon Phipps challenged many open source ideals at a recent open source conference in London. Urging the open source community to look to the lessons of capitalism, Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest" and denounced the perceived legal issues surrounding open source. From the article: "Phipps took time out to take a swipe at some of the exhibitors at the conference who were selling professional advice on negotiating the open source 'legal minefield'. 'I disagree with those who say who say open source is a legal minefield,' he said as he threw from the stage a brochure from one firm of lawyers. 'If you think open source is a minefield you're doing it wrong.'"
Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Is this a revelation? (Score:3, Informative)
How does Open Source not fit into capitalism? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is an article how Linux IS Capitalist [lewrockwell.com]
Re:Are you serious? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:editing posts (Score:5, Informative)
Before replies, before moderation, and before a few minutes have passed. Also, you'd need to block moderation of very recently edited comments. And a cost of one point off the starting score for the comment.
It's unlikely to ever be implemented though, because their stance on letting people delete their comments [slashdot.org] would probably apply to editing as well:
rocket science (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Not nearly as bad as the people who try to categorize others incorrectly. Stallman doesn't think that it's wrong to make money selling Free Software. To the contrary, he actively encourages people to do so. Just read the FSF's essay on selling Free Software [fsf.org]. For people who can't bother to follow the link, a salient quote is (emphasis is from the original):
That doesn't seem like somebody who's opposed to capitalism.
Reporter missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
In fact I said and routinely say nothing of the sort. Matt Asay does a fine job of summarising the main points I made [infoworld.com], which you will note do not include claiming "open source could learn from capitalism". In fact I wonder if the other reporter was even at the same event. Reading through the whole thread here I'm amazed that people feel they can come to any conclusions about what I think based on an intentionally provocative and ill-informed article by a ZDNet reporter who badly summarises the thrust of my keynote in reported speech apparently intended to garner Slashdot coverage.
And I disagree with your outdated analysis of Sun, naturally.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
3. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The FSF supports any (legitimate) business/revenue model which respects these four freedoms.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
WTF?
Do you really believe that, or are you just trolling?
As far as I know, Stallman has nothing against capitalism. He just believes that ideas are not capital but can be the result of capitalism - just like a full belly or a feeling of happiness can be the result of capitalist production but are not capital themselves.
isn't that actually called 'eclecticism'? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sun needs to learn from capitalism too (Score:2, Informative)
which is very unlike news about Sun Microsystems [com.com]
But no surprise there, it's been happening for a while [com.com]
now who's capitalistic ?
Nothing to do with my views (Score:5, Informative)
I am fascinated by the words you are putting into my mouth here. The things you claim I said are pretty much the opposite of what I believe - I suppose that's what happens when you use reported speech from a clueless journalist as truth. The journalist really didn't understand what I was saying.
Absolutely not. In the talk I explain clearly that those who do not share their work lose out. Keeping source to yourself benefits no-one and the whole point of that part of the talk was to explain why attempting to withhold work from the community was a mistake.
Absolutely wrong. See above.
It's hard to see how you possibly be further from my view. If I thought free software was bad, I would not have licensed the OpenOffice.org source under LGPL, for example, and I would not be directing the staff at Sun to take Sun's entire software portfolio open source.
Re:"Right to use" is here to stay. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you're missing the point of what I'm saying - I in fact agree with you. What I am saying is that, in a world where one can no longer charge for the right to use software, the only place there is left to earn a living is by providing value to the software user at the point where they need it. I have explained this in detail before [sun.com] but essentially what I my "Software Market 3.0" point says is that once Freedom 0 is guaranteed, business models based on restrictions on use can no longer work, and all business models available in the F/OSS future are based on delivering value - service, support, bug-fixing and so on - at the point where the customer can no longer provide those things themselves based on skills. The whole point of my job is to help Sun transition into that F/OSS future.
Re:Err, correction (Score:3, Informative)
But bear in mind that the GNU system _was_ made in order to protect freedom.
Free Software _is_ about protecting freedom.
Open Source isn't, it's about writing software, for fun _or_ profit.
I care more about free software, but I think it's great when people do it for the money, but don't choose to restrict your freedom.