Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[lonestarnot AT earthling.net]

> Subject: Re: [Long] Why Microsoft is a Dinosaur,  Tony Stanco
> From: Calvin Powers <calvin AT cspowers.com>
> 
> ... Personally, I think Eric's take on this stuff is a bit more 
> down to earth.
> 
> As a big fan, supporter, and (_very_) minor participant in the Open Source 
> movement, it amuses me to see so many neo-Marxists citing the Open Source 
> movement as proof that capitalism is an outdated dinosaur and soon to be 
> obsolete.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I buy into the notion that the open source movement is 
> a successful and viable gift-culture. But A) I don't believe that 
> gift-cultures are incompatible with, or undermining of, a capitalist 
> society and B) Just because the open source movement is successful and 
> viable doesn't mean it's going to _dominate_ or _replace_ the 
> corporate-based software industry.
> 
> Indeed, many corporations (except perhaps Microsoft), including my employer 
> (IBM), are doing a pretty darn good job both supporting the Open Source 
> movement and (dare I say it) capitalizing on the Open Source movement to 
> enhance share-holder value. Check out http://www.ibm.com/linux and 
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/ for some examples.
> 

Hmmm?

Like C.Powers and E.Raymond, I tend to favor pragmatic, empirical views
over broad ideological ones; and I'm most comfortable looking -- as
our judiciary does -- at one case at a time ... leaving my

It's mostly semantics, but I wouldn't say Open/Free software efforts
really fit a traditional "gift-culture" pattern.  I'm more likely to
suggest a "frontier development" pattern.  
Among the common contexts for Free/Open development are those
where the developer
   a) has some personal motivation for the development, 
       e.g. class project, degree project, employer project, and/or
   b) would have a difficulty establishing ownership, especially in
      light of the corporate/academic support during development, and/or
   c) anticipates little market for the product as-is,
   d) doesn't really have the resources to polish & market it, and/or 
   e) sees more _personal_ benefit in the wide acceptance Free/Openness
      might generate than personal benefit from traditional
arrangements.

All of these rationales may be quite self-serving -- as was the 
MS decision to forego cash payments on IE5.  
 (Judge Jackson didn't make IE5 truly "Free Software".  I would have.)

It seems that, as with municipal development on the frontier, 
frequently settlers in a new area have personal and/or mutual 
needs which will simply go unmet lest they craft the solutions 
themselves.  Eventually, big money will come along to "refine" 
the resources, but only after the demand for them is _proven_ 
by the pioneers.
  [there's a pubic/private, N.East/S.West social dichotomy here 
   ... but that's a new topic] 


GPL looks like brilliance to me.
It's "viral" nature serves as one small check against the overwhelming
private exploitation of "the commons".  [e.g. see "human DNA patents"]

Those of us who are concerned by
 - "ag consolidations": i.e., 1000 private farms --> 1 ADM
 - "Tucker Automotive": i.e., Big 3 muscle innovator completely out
are similarly concerned about the infant SW industry.
Try to forgive us if we seem less than generous regarding 
the few viable means of staving off corporate hegemony.
It's just far too easy for us to hear phrases like 
"third world country" and -- noting those same country's
natural resources -- get a little touchy about overconcentration
of wealth, power, valuable IP, etc.



While I'm too weak on history to cite more than the "train gauge"
debacles from our industrial development era, our recent telecomputing 
history has given me a feel for how truly difficult it can be to get
our diverse citizenry to agree on anything -- no matter how obvious.

So the GPL looks to me like a phenomenal success simply in the fact 
that so many people have agreed to both its spirit and its wording.
  [compare that to multiple acts of Congress, a Civil War, and more,
   to establish _some_ national agreement over property rights]


> No nefarious purpose here, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. 
> As I do not agree with the ultimate goals of the FSF, I'm often
> made out to be an idiot, a bad guy or worse.  But so far, nobody
> has convinced me that the FSF's ultimate goal will benefit me in
> the long run as an independent software author.

Just this small debate seems to highlight GPL/LGPL's brilliance,
It helps carve out a space for "Open/Free" efforts in a society
whose natural tendencies are toward ever more concentrated resources
and depletion of "the commons".  Proprietary SW can and will 
continue; GPL simply adds another choice.  
No it's not for everyone or for every project;
but we know that "one size" rarely "fits all".  So be it.

GPL looks very impressive to me.


William Johnson
lonestarnot AT earthling.net


P.S. 
  ... and yes, predictably, I'm pro-Napster too.