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.'"
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, because that statement alone could be interpreted as Christian, Marxist, and Capitalist all at the same time.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx. It was derived from two parts of the Book of Acts in the Bible, Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:34-35, describing the system set up amongst the apostles. And in a more general sense, the statement comports with capitalist ideas of individual agency and self-interest.
Re:Whining capitalist .... (Score:1, Interesting)
Which makes for an interesting little equilibrium. There's a lot of consumer surplus to be had... not so much producer surplus. And a lot of positive externalities that result from the creation of free software.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
That is interesting and you are certainly right that the language is similar. I wasn't aware there was similar language in the Bible.
It's somewhat amusing that a Jewish Communist drew his rhetorical inspiration from the Christian New Testament.
Phipps could learn from real capitalism (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey, don't ask for capitalism if you can't live under it's rules yourself.
Re:it's not about capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
That gets the developers what the developers want. No project, commercial or free, is going to gain much traction if there isn't a commitment to maintain it for an acceptable amount of time. Also, any need that isn't popular among developers may simply be ignored because there's no incentie. I think the OSS movement could use more "bounty coding", though I don't know if that's going to get quality code or not, because implementing a feature so that it works on some minimal level is easier than polishing it and making sure it is solid, reliable code.
FOSS does what you want it to (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's the facts on capitalism. (Score:3, Interesting)
Directed Selfishness (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Someone gets paid some money by some group or project to write some code.
2) Another person who also wrote code for the project but didn't get paid says "I want mine!"
3) The whole project folds as some idiot starts equating pay to the number-of-lines-written multiplied by the moeny-per-line-of-code of the first person.
People, if you want to write software for money, get a job. If you want to write software because you think the project is neat and/or worth you while, donate your time.
Same goes for volunteering in other things. The world could use our help - for free.
Re:Whining capitalist .... (Score:2, Interesting)
True capitalism is greed based. You make something, and then you guard it jealously, never letting anyone see it, so you and only you can make money off it.
OSS doesn't work that way. You make something then put it out into the system, where a lot of people can use it, some to make money, and others just for fun, and in return some of those people put code back into the system, which you can use for whatever. Money can be a part of it, but it's not the driving force behind it all.
Re:We seem to be forgetting ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents were originally a way to induce inventors to share their discoveries with the public. The requirement for a patent is that the method be detailed and published publically. In return for revealing this information the inventor received a short-term monopoly (14-20 years) on the production of their invention--long enough to recoup their investment costs and make some profit.
What lessons? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what lessons would those be? Sacrificing quality to meet shipping schedules? Or butchering established standards to ensure that competing products cannot interoperate? Or ignoring security fixes to disable the latest workaround to copy protection because the first only protects customers and their data while the latter increases company profits?
Phipps called for "volunteerism" to be replaced with "directed self-interest"
He is ignoring the fact that any participation in open source is directed self-interest. Keeping myself free is a self-interest; keeping my computer and its abilities under my control is a self-interest; being able to design hardware and write software free of all the shlock mentioned above is a self-interest. Working as a wage-slave for some company that will pay me pennies but make millions from my designs is volunteerism of the basest sort.
Re:Here's the facts on capitalism. (Score:3, Interesting)
Doing away with Interest wouldn't entirely eliminate the problems you describe, but it would certainly reduce them dramatically. It will also never happen, since (a) it would require radical change in our economics, (b) it creates far too much wealth and power for the entities who run the world, (c) far too few people really understand Interest's role in economics, and those that do are largely the ones benefitting from it.
There's a joke about economists:
so caveat lector. However, one economist that I, personally, think had some interesting ideas on this was Silvio Gesell, who's solution to the problem of Interest was Freigeld [wikipedia.org].--- SER
EULAs (Score:3, Interesting)
The assertion that a EULA can be indefinitely scoped is the most unbounded liability in the entire product marketplace.
--Dan
Re:Here's the facts on capitalism. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) How do our cells compete to distribute resources?
An interesting essay [bcm.edu] proposes that cells use competition as a means to determine which functions, which organs, which tissues, and what features are developed. Otherwise we would be a blob of millions of identical undifferentiated cells with identical genes. Or a cancer, if you like. Certain cells, like bone, need calcium more than certain cells need lipids, like fat, or protien, like muscles. This competition for resources would allow different cells to develop differently, in a way reducing competition by specializing into different cells with different requirements, with the end results that you have a heart and bones and blood and fat and muscle.
2) Why do cells die when told to?
Some forms of cell death [wikipedia.org] are critical to development of features such as fingers, in which the spaces between fingers die and fall away. It is a form of survival enhancement in the same way kin selection selects for altruistic behavior. A creature born with a functional heart, because certain nerves and muscles and fats died when told to, survived while a creature born without a functional heart died.
3) Cells that only compete have a name: cancer
That is entirely too simplistic. Cancer is many things, not only competing. Cancer cells have to cooperate to create the necessary environment necessary for cancer growth, such as the development of additional blood vessels, supports, and metastasizing. Cancer cells are like normal cells, but more so
4) One flora or fauna overwhelming the rest is the end result of competition, not cooperation!
The fact is that when there is multiple flora or fauna competing, no single flora or fauna can overwhelm the system because they keep each other in check. If they did not keep each other in check, if they did not compete but instead gave up, then you get gastrointestinal infections and other diseases. As long as there is competition no one can overwhelm, by the very definition of competition.
5) People are not intrinisically motivated by competition.
So if I can offer proof of one individual intrinisically motivated by competition, your assertion is proven wrong. Here is my proof, and I use me, because I am a person and I am motivated by competition. I like knowing I am smarter, I like knowing I am right, and this is my reward for posting on Slashdot, in which moderators might see my brilliance and mod me up for other people to see my posts and read my words. I compete with other Slashdot posters for moderation points.
6) There is no proof that competition motivates people to greater heights. There is no proof that in a cooperative environment people would get barely enough to survive. Rather than addressing my legitimate points, you are just making shit up.
Again I apologize, I should have made it more clear I was being facetious, sarcastic, and mocking. My real point is lost in the noise, I was trying to point out that competition and cooperation both are needed. Cooperation is a valid survival and success strategy. Two people together may survive where two people competing might not. However two people competing may achieve more than two people cooperating because the reward and competition incites more out of the people. I think we need both.
I was never trying to invalidate you, merely show you as being hyperbolic. Cooperation is necessary. So is competition.
You ask a serious question: "Why do corporations never use internal competition between divisions"?
My answer, "Because cooperation is the more successful strategy in
Re:Reporter missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, you disagree with my analysis. Sun's not Open Sourcing Java. Let's talk again when that happens.
Bruce
Re:got that backwards.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody upthread brough up the concept of "Perfect Information", and added "Scamming someone violates the idea of "perfect information" and is the reason we have anti-fraud laws on the books in every capitalist country". Well, what's modern advertising, if not an attempt to distort "perfect information" in favour of the advertiser? Sounds pretty damned close to institutionalised theft/fraud to me, sanctioned by your favourite socio-economic philosophy...
Re:What lessons? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what lessons would those be? Sacrificing quality to meet shipping schedules? Or butchering established standards to ensure that competing products cannot interoperate? Or ignoring security fixes to disable the latest workaround to copy protection because the first only protects customers and their data while the latter increases company profits?
I don't really have a stake in this argument. But I'd say that you have just pointed out a number of ways open source has already listened to capitalism.New Sun (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I decided to stay at Sun because in my personal opinion the company has found a new direction and energy under new leadership [sun.com], focussing on providing the systems to deliver the next generation of computing in a world where open source is dominant. I think the company is returning to its roots and heading in the right direction at last.To give you some examples:
Doubtless there are plenty on Slashdot who'll come over to throw rocks, but I'm very pleased all this and more is happening as there was a time not so long ago when I would not have been so positive (or keen to stay). As it is (and regardless of what Bruce may say), I'm proud to be running Sun's open source strategy on the watch where Sun's Java implementations all go open source.
Re:EULAs (Score:3, Interesting)
So the GPL is a Distribution (of Copies of Copyrighted Materials) License Agreement, not an End-User License Agreement.
To correct your analogy, the GPL would say that you can't copy and modify the intellectual property embedded in the car and sell it, without allowing others to do the same. A typical EULA would tell you that you have to stop driving the car if you use it on a non-supported road, or if you open the hood yourself, or go to an independent mechanic.
Jesus was a Libertarian (Score:1, Interesting)
the bottle of vodka is at the top. Communism is not religion, even though some
very stupid and selfish people romanticize it. Communism is a government/business
arrangement.
Jesus stood for one thing: truth. Communists stand for one thing: A big manipulative lie.
Jesus was a Jew who once and fo all solved the Jewish Problem of us/them, one set
of rules for the Jews, another completely different set of rules for interacting with
non-Jews. This is why the Jews hate him, because he cracked the two-faced operations
method open like a egg.
Now, US taxpayer, prepare to pay $80m of your tax money to replace the power plant the
Israelis just blew up. Guess what, the guy who built the plant insured it through the US
government. Policy due, tax payer.