Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com)
Bruce Byfield talks with
Linus Torvalds, on Linux.com. "Asked point-blank which is more
important, sharing code or empowering users -- the declared goal of the
free software champions whom Torvalds is routinely depicted as being in
opposition with -- and his first response in what he calls "the usual Linus
polite words" is "That's a really stupid question. Why do you put it as an
'either or' kind of concept?" He then goes on to explain that, because open
source operates in the same manner as scientific query, and is a matter of
enlightened self-interest, sharing code and empowering users "are not at
odds at all" -- a view that, in the end, places him closer to the free
software position than either free software or open source followers might
care to admit."
(Log in to post comments)
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 16:30 UTC (Sat) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link] It seems that one of the things that divides Linus from the FSF is a belief in enlightened self-interest rather than communal action and altruism. Stallman believes in altruism, and in setting up a system that rewards it. Linus only believes in self-interest. And I think Linus is wrong and naive in his position. At a minimum, an open market needs rules enacted for the common good. Without those rules and vigorous enforcement, some will always abuse the system. The GPL v2 is one set of rules governing the Free Software market. It's a good set, but it can (and should) be improved, because some have found ways to abuse the market it set up.
Linus says that there's no dichotomy between a focus on empowering users versus sharing code. Clearly, IMNSHO, there is. Suppose the manufacturer of the famous printer whose proprietary code inspired Stallman to start the Free Software movement had given him the code, but used DRM to lock down the software in the printer. He would have had the code, but he still would have had a buggy printer (and potentially, a printer that tried to phone home, or watermarked all his documents, etc). The FSF has always taken a user-centric approach. The kernel hackers generally take a developer-centric approach. Everyone is a user, but only some users are developers. I side with the FSF.
If Linus really thinks he's right on these issues, he should license the kernel under the LGPL v2 rather than the GPL. That would be less coercive to potential users of the code. But I doubt it would work nearly as well.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 17:19 UTC (Sat) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] The thing is, that long term, it is in your best self-interest to live in an altruistic system. (Game theorists can even prove/explain, that it is beneficial to live in a community where, say, martyrdom is valued.) So the things you try to paint as opposing views really are not. For an enlightened person, saying "I'm primarily interested in my own well being" it doesn't follow "I'm primarily out here to screw everyone else".
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 18:10 UTC (Sat) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link] I agree that it's in one's best interest to live in an altruistic system, and I've seen some empirical (psychological) research supporting this.
My point is that Linus seems to think that unalloyed, unrestrained self-interest is best. And I think that such a view is not only wrong, but is more compatible with LGPL v2 rather than the GPL, contrary to his own actions. The GPL is "viral" in order to actively promote the creation of free software. This is in contrast to the laissez-faire approach Linus favors.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 19:26 UTC (Sat) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] Ok. I interpret Linus a bit differently then, that's all and that's ok.I do realise that hearing Linus talk and hearing RMS talk you'd think they are very different. But I've always thought that the "sharing code is ethical" stance is basically very close to the more pragmatic "sharing is a good way to create good software". The whole point of "ethical" is that it promotes something good and desirable. After all, it's not like it says in the Bible that all Software must be Free. (Regardless what religion you or me adhere to, I remember reading that at least Stallman is an atheist.) So the "Free Software is the only ethical thing to do" claim must obviously be up for argumentation, since it is not something ordained by God. And once you start explaining why it is ethical to do the Free Software thing, you end up with a lot of the same arguments as you'd hear from the more pragmatist camp. (Let's say Linus, in this case.) The only difference might be that "ethical" is more high level or abstract than the particular pragmatist arguments you might see. For instance you could argue that sharing is always ethical, so it must be so also with software. But other than that, as I said, my view has always been that the supposedly opposing arguments on this point have much more in common than many people (including RMS himself) let us believe.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 23:39 UTC (Sat) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link] >But I've always thought that the "sharing code is ethical" stance is basically very close to the more pragmatic "sharing is a good way to create good software".Maybe at first blush it is almost the same. But "sharing code is ethical" goes much further than "sharing is a good way to create good software". The second one only aims at a development strategy to create better software while the first one discusses the value of freedom in the digital age and the control/power which is created by (non-free)software. You can see the difference in the Tivo discussion. The "Free Software viewpoint" focuses on freedom in the digital age and therefore Tivoization is bad because it removes freedom from the Tivo users. By contrast the "sharing is a good way to create good software viewpoint" make Tivoization looks good because it doesn't stop you from creating good software and maybe it even gives code back (because you can look at the Tivo code) to improve your code even if it reduces freedom for the Tivo users. Richard Stallman also explained this quite good in his "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software" essay: "Powerful, reliable software can be bad
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 14:24 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] It seems I'm in a philosophical dialogical mood this weekend - or maybe I just have time to spare. Whatever the reason, before continuing this thread I wanted to make it explicit - and I hope it was already obvious - that I have no axe to grind and am not advocating the side of any "camp" in this discussion. And as far as I can tell, the other participants in this thread are also enganged with the same open minded spirit.The previous comment's examples highlights two very interesting points: 1) It is worth noting, that while nobody has done so, it would be quite possible to argue against Tivo DRM on pragmatist grounds. Surely, if users were able to install modified software (or is it firmware?) on the Tivos they already own, that would vastly increase the number of potential Tivo-kernel-hackers, because if you don't have the hardware to run your software, what's the point. Also, it would certainly create a userbase that would want to use modified Tivo software that other hackers are producing. And those users would give feedback, become beta-testers and other valuable things. So to me it seems that prohibiting Tivo from using DRM would clearly enhance the software creation process in the way that the "pragmatist Open Source camp" argues that sharing code does. So for whatever reasons the kernel developers have currently decided to speak out for the side of Tivo and other appliance creators using DRM - probably because they don't want risk scaring them away from using Linux. But they could have used the argument I laid out above, and they would still have been keeping to the pragmatist Open Source tone. 2) The quote from Stallman indeed is a good example of where the ethical part of Free Software ideology really stands out from the more general "sharing code leads to good" ideologies that exist in both camps. Interestingly, we should also note that with those words Stallman has also reached the boundaries of where it is acceptable to go with the Free Software ideology. While it is possible to "legislate" licensing terms against DRM on the basis of protecting Open Source and/or Free Software principles, it is not possible to rule out bad software in general by licensing mechanisms. You could do many bad things with Linux, and the GPL cannot prohibit any that, because it would actually be against the "no restriction on field of use" that exist in the Debian Free Software Guidelines and Open Source Definition. This was the very reason why GPLv3 cannot prohibit spyware functionality, as the first draft tried to do. So you could use Linux and GNU software to build a machine that will strangle the user, and there is nothing Stallman could do about it. (Hopefully the police would something instead.) So while yes, the above post does point out where the difference between Free Software and Open Source is, the area we are treading on - the actual difference other than the tone of discussion - is much smaller than most people have realised.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 18:00 UTC (Mon) by peschmae (guest, #32292) [Link] > ...> But they could have used the argument I laid out above, and they would > still have been keeping to the pragmatist Open Source tone.
Right. However you'd also have to consider the fact that Tivo actually invested quite a lot into preventing this; you could expect them to have considered the alternatives (though I am probably overestimating the mean manager brainpower at this point ;-))
> You could do many bad things with Linux, and the GPL cannot prohibit any
The GPL does not have to be compatible to either the Open Source Definition, the DFSG or the Free Software Definition. Obviously it would create quite a bunch of problems if such was the case, but then again it would be Debian's problem... ;-)
(Though admittedly being incompatible to the Free Software Definition would be very strange indeed)
Peschmä
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 17, 2007 13:46 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] My point is that Linus seems to think that unalloyed, unrestrained self-interest is best.Would you please care to substantiate that claim? He thinks that the scientific method is best, that Open Source reflects that in the realm of software development, and that it will win in the end for that reason. But that's not akin to unrestrained self-interest. If it would be so, Linux would not think that GPLv2 is best, he would use a BSD-like license or even put his place into public domain. Since he doesn't do that, he thinks obviously that some kind of restraints are good. The main difference between you and Linus is that you differ in the amount of restraints that is sensible. That would be all well, and good discussions could come out of such difference of opinions -- but at the same time you paint him in the radical corner of promoting "unalloyed, unrestrained self-interest" to further your arguments with a strawmen. Well, please note that /. is a better home for this style of argumentation than LWN.net. Joachim
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 14:07 UTC (Sun) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] > the manufacturer ... had given him the code, but used DRM to lock down the software in the printer.
And suppose the manufacturer had used Read-Only-Memory to store that code, not DRM-ed flush and refused to give any details how to make that ROM chip or to replace it with something programmable even it would be entirely feasible and cheap for a user. Then the user would still have a buggy printer yet according to FSF this is acceptable.
> The FSF has always taken a user-centric approach.
As above example demonstrates, this is not entirely true. GPLv3 explicitly states that using ROM is OK. This is not that user friendly since it is precisely the boot loader in ROM in TiVo devices that prevents loading of a kernel with a non-matching signature, not the signature itself.
The bottom line is that FSF's decision to prevent in GPLv3 just one particular measure to restrict user-modified code from running while allowing other ways to archive that is a political decision. I would prefer if FSF would stay away from politics in GPL while spending more efforts educating users about dangers of DRM through other means than a software license.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 16:00 UTC (Sun) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >>Then the user would still have a buggy printer yet according to FSF this is acceptable.
To understand why there is a big difference in these two seemingly similar cases, it might be instructive to hear a bit more about the story.
At a certain point, rms found a person who had in his possesion the source code of the printer driver. He went over there and asked for it, but that person refused to give it to him. Because he had promised not to do so in order to get access to it in the first place.
Since all it would have taken to end rms' printer woes was a transfer of bits or a simple print-out, this was pretty much an artificial wall created
Having a non-functional printer is a nuisance, but it would probably not have resulted in the Free Software movement.
"Building divisive walls in between users" is a very abstract concept in most cases but it is exactly the difference between software locked in roms and software locked by DRM.
Having software in a ROM meant no-one was able to fix the problem at near zero cost. There are no "masters" of the software who can decide who will be allowed to change it (with new features or to fix bugs).
Doing this by DRM means that everyone might be able to do this, if that person is in possession of the secret.
--
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 20:41 UTC (Sun) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] > Having software in a ROM meant no-one was able to fix the problem at near zero cost.
This is not true if ROM chips easily replaceable. For example, consider a case when a company supplies an entertainment box with a code that runs from a ROM card. Once in a while the company would send customers with new cards in a nicely packaged leaflet explaining why the new cards is necessary.
Even if the company publish the code, it would not help to run the modified version if the hardware interface to the card remains secret. So ROM can be used to create an artficial barrier.
On the other hand consider the fact that most DRM schemes can be defeated with cheep mod chips so DRM does not work as a significant barrier to prevent a user from running modified code.
What is really the problem and creates high bariers is when companies threatens users with legal actions if they try to hack software or hardware using laws like DMCA and similar. GPLv3 made an attempt to fix that with explicitly stating that distributing GPL-ed code means granting the right to change. Unfortunately AFAIK it covers only the software itself, not the hardware that runs it.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 21:17 UTC (Sun) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link] >Even if the company publish the code, it would not help to run the modified version if the hardware interface to the card remains secret. So ROM can be used to create an artficial barrier.It's not a artificial barrier it's a real barrier. I can quite easily write some lines of code and compile it with gcc but i can't create a ROM chip. If the company can easily change the code, compile it and let it run than i should be able too. But the company can't do this either. Of course they can produce a new ROM and replace it but they can't replace the software with tools that you and i would have too.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 21:58 UTC (Sun) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] > I can quite easily write some lines of code and compile it with gcc but i can't create a ROM chip.
If an interface for a chip is known, then AFAIK it is not that hard to get a programmable version of it to work with the interface. Then having programmable chip would be just one of the requirements to get modified code to run on the device in the same way as having GCC to compile or a computer to edit the source.
So a chip with deliberately non standard and undocumented interface is an artificial barrier created on purpose.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 1:56 UTC (Mon) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link] i think that when the FSF got going, FPGA and similar rewritable chips was more a engineers dream then a household item. and those that existed was most likely limited in capacity.
so if one wanted to fix problems in a chip, one would have to fire up the factory and spit out new ones. and if they where soldered onto the board, its non-trivial to replace it physically.
now we have gigabits on flash, so things have changed.
if all one needs to do to fix a problem (a very relative term but still) in a chip is to enter a command in a cli or hit a button on a gui, then it becomes a very different story.
its all a question of the physical effort involved.
and as the amount of effort drops, so does its value...
by trying to limit who can do so, one tries to inflate said value.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 9:26 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Wishing that the FSF would stay away from politics in the GPL is a forlorn hope. The GPL has always been a document with explicitly political goals; it states the things it does only because it serves RMS's strongly-held political/ethical goals for it to do so. (Remember, the GNU Manifesto predates it, and I understand that the GPL itself was initially written largely as a political tool to keep anyone doing with RMS's code what Gosling had done with it.)
If you took the politics out of the GPL I suspect that what you'd have would be the BSD license: and we know what problems *that* has, developer bleed-away and so on.
*sigh* (offtopic) Posted Aug 12, 2007 17:14 UTC (Sun) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > And I think Linus is wrong and naive in his position.To me they're both wrong, just because the difference _to me_ lies in another plane than altruism vs egoism per se. And there both of them are on the same side, sadly.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 17:23 UTC (Sat) by cekim (guest, #3295) [Link] "Stallman believes in altruism, and in setting up a system that rewards it. Linus only believes in self-interest. And I think Linus is wrong and naive in his position."
Linus is only as "wrong" as every scientist who has come before him...
Science as a pursuit is always "selfish" whether the scientist admits it or not. It has the pleasant, desired and intended side-effect of helping other people, but it is the selfish desire to be "the one" who does the helping that drives the individual, if not the blatant desire of the scientist to prove his superiority (over peers or everyone).
This is the same misunderstanding that is plauging capitalism and democracy. These systems don't expect, ask or require the "individual" to behave "well" or in any other fashion than in their own self-interest. If practiced correctly (with as little intervention as feasible), these systems are designed to extract maximum benifit from individual self interest for the greater good...
They do so better than any other system because they leave the "choice" (or "selection") of what is "best" up to the workings of the system rather than trying to pick "leaders" who somehow "know better" (here's a hint - they only know how to "better" themselves)...
Its not "perfect" and this is a great example of "perfect as enemy of good enough", but it is better than any other system out there... Socialism, in its various forms always ends up being a dictatorship of the few or the one who claims to "know what is best".
Stallman, in stated principle is the one who is being naive in that you can't eat ideas. He has to do this though as incremental revolutions don't work - you have to fight for the extreme and compromise on a change for the better to get anywhere...
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 18:21 UTC (Sat) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link] 'Science as a pursuit is always "selfish" whether the scientist admits it or not. It has the pleasant, desired and intended side-effect of helping other people, but it is the selfish desire to be "the one" who does the helping that drives the individual, if not the blatant desire of the scientist to prove his superiority (over peers or everyone).'
As a practicing scientist, I can tell you that this is often (though not always) false. Unless you in turn are a psychoanalyst who will tell me what I *really* think. Like anyone, a scientist has many motivations, some congruent, some conflicting. But most scientists are very concerned with bettering the common good, and the practice of science wouldn't work very well if they weren't. It's true that there is competition in science, in part because the funding system (particularly in the US) encourages it. But that's only part of the story.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 11, 2007 20:30 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yep. Thinking that your making the world is a better place is a pleasent thing isn't it? I mean it's not like your living out your life in a selfish manner, you are actually doing stuff good for the world!
Sure makes it feel good to be you, doesn't it? :P
(just trying to be funny)
On a more serious note...
How society progresses, how it evolves is that people are working for themselves. That's it: Self-interest. And there isn't absolutely anything wrong with it as long as everybody is fair.
Linux kernel is not a 'altruistic' system. It's more like economics, were you have a cooperative system. A system were everybody is doing things because they want something. They want to sell servers. They want to be noted and consider people using their software as success in itself. Some people have a political agenda. Some people think the world would work better if people followed their example and their influence and those people are willing to work hard for that goal. Some people want to pay their mortgages, feed their families. Other people do it because their boss told them to because that company wants to use Linux to sell people set-top boxes, etc etc.
In the end its all the same. Everybody is fair and most of the time the negative influence of people trying to manipulate others is kept to a low level.
It's when people act out and try to force other people to do their work against those people's own personal best interest is when bad things happen. When people are being manipulative, unjust, or unfair. From a micro level were people are flaming each other on some mailing list to a macro level were the government forces people to give them money under threat of imprisonment and financial ruin so that people running the government can force political issues and society through funding initiatives, laws, and special taxes. (usually at a financial or other gain for the people in that government)
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 9:41 UTC (Sun) by bockman (guest, #3650) [Link] (We are _WAY_ off-topic, but it is just too tempting ... :-)
Yes ... and not.
I used to think like you, and still partly do. But then I realized that 'self-interest' only works well in quiet times.
(Sorry, it came out a bit strong :-)
Ciao
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 14:03 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Makes sense to me.
In that light it's very reasonable to say that exceptional times sometimes call for exceptional sacrifices from exceptional people. Bless them for that. :)
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 12:12 UTC (Mon) by tyhik (guest, #14747) [Link] I have been a practicing scientist for about 10 years (left academia a few years ago though). My experience is that most scientists are motivated by the following: (a) furthering their own fame and standing, (b) doing interesting stuff (the order depends on a person). Being first to discover someting fits well with these. Discovering or producing something good for mankind fits also well with (a). Though furthering mankind's wellbeing may be a motivator for many, this motivator is in many science fields supported by funding principles. And this is good.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 16:20 UTC (Mon) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] But most scientists are very concerned with bettering the common good, and the practice of science wouldn't work very well if they weren't. The scientific world forces academic scientists to "be altruistic" by sharing there their results through publications, presentations, and public discussions. Even patents need to be published, so even they have an (albeit tiny) contribution in making knowlegde available to the public. There may be some scientists that care primarily for "bettering the common good". For the majority, making a living, securing one's job, and earning reputation are most probaby stronger motivations. But that doesn't matter because they have to be altruistic, at least to a certain extent. That's pretty close to the system that Linus describes for Open Source.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 3:21 UTC (Sun) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "If practiced correctly (with as little intervention as feasible), these systems are designed to extract maximum benifit from individual self interest for the greater good..."
Wait now, we are talking about the software market here right?
A market in goods protected by copyrights and patents. Both government granted monopoly plays. From what I see, this is seriously not as little intervention as feasible. (It may or may not be the best amount of intervention, but I cartainly don't see how we can maintain that it is as little as feasible.)
So, in this field, people are not as free as possible to operate in their individual self interest.
all the best,
drew
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 12, 2007 14:19 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well the GPL effectively uses the restrictions automaticly placed on work and uses that to counteract most the copyright law in a effective manner... It's using copyright law to counteract most of the effects of copyright law.
GPLv3 seems to be trying to do a similar thing with patents, but obviously patents are much more dangerous and less manageable.
In a world without software copyrights or software patents then most open and free software development would continue without being realy effected much in a negative manner. Most would actually probably get a positive boost from more openness.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 2:10 UTC (Mon) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link] well the very idea of a software patent is a very US one iirc.
there have been made repeated attempts at exporting that idea, but its yet to take hold.
one reason i guess is because of the overlap that copyright and software patents have. your in effect doubling up on protection.
also, given the decline in industrial production on US soil, most of US exports these days are in the form of non-physical goods. entertainment, software, the whole nine yards.
if USA can get other nations to recognize their software patents, and they can keep producing them faster then other nations can, they can maintain (or maybe regain these days) the economic first nation status that it had up until the 80's or there about.
while soviet tossed in the towel first, before being pronounced dead, USA didnt walk away from the cold war without a scratch.
and now that it cant reasonable pour unlimited amounts of money into the military-industrial complex, and more and more civilian production moves outside, and ships in, the economy is running on vapors.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 16, 2007 8:55 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Linus is only as "wrong" as every scientist who has come before him... Good that we've got you to explain it then. Science as a pursuit is always "selfish" whether the scientist admits it or not. It has the pleasant, desired and intended side-effect of helping other people, but it is the selfish desire to be "the one" who does the helping that drives the individual, if not the blatant desire of the scientist to prove his superiority (over peers or everyone). The problem with this mode of thinking is that you, in essence, claim that all actions are, by nessecity, selfish. At which point the word "selfish" no longer has any meaningful content whatsoever. When somebody does something that helps others, at some expense to himself, one can *always* claim that he does so in order to fulfill his selfish wish to feel good about himself. So, if every action ever undertaken by anybody was ALWAYS 100% selfish, then what is the point of saying "X is selfish" -- that follows automatically if EVERYTHING is selfish.
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 13, 2007 1:43 UTC (Mon) by cekim (guest, #3295) [Link] >>I used to think like you, and still partly do. But then I realized that 'self-interest' only works well in quiet times.
That's a sign of the times in that parenting and education have failed to teach people to "think" logically beyond "I want it - gimmie"...
If you have a decent working knowledge of history and a reasonable grasp of common sense then you understand that it is in your "self-interest" to create, support, demand an "ethical" and "transparent" system rather than a free-for-all. Its cheaper if you don't have to fight over everything...
Would you rather carry a gun and threaten people who infringe on your property, or would you rather there be an agreed upon standard of ownership? My self-interest says I'd rather pay taxes and educate people so that they can think past "gimmie" and be useful - but lately no amount of taxes seem to be able to buy that...
>>But most scientists are very concerned with bettering the common good, and the practice of science wouldn't work very well if they weren't."
I am not accusing them of being selfish evil "bastages", but the reality is that those that work toward "bettering the common good" do so:
b. still want to be sure that it is noted that "they" did it - I don't see a lot of "anonymous" in scientific literature... "Publishing" before peers is a real powerful motivator for performance.
Open source is a wonderful demonstration of this "selfish phenomenon" - people want their name these works - they ask no money, but demand recognition of their "contribution" to the community. Then they fight tooth and nail when the decision between one solution and the other is purely aesthetic to keep "theirs" to preserve their contribution/accomplishment.
No assignment of blame in my "selfish" label - just putting it into perspective - we can only escape our nature for a little while - then bill for altruism arrives and suddenly no one is fighting to pick up the tab...
I think RMS should continue to be as nutty as a fruit-cake about this - it is a tiny pin-prick to offset the flood of people trying to nickel and dime the world to death with ludicrous legislation called "abuse of the patent system".
Linus' only fault is in being pragmatic, honest and a public figure at the same time - those things never go well together ;-)
Linus explains why open source works (Linux.com) Posted Aug 16, 2007 9:10 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] If you have a decent working knowledge of history and a reasonable grasp of common sense then you understand that it is in your "self-interest" to create, support, demand an "ethical" and "transparent" system rather than a free-for-all. Its cheaper if you don't have to fight over everything... Certainly. I recently read a report trying to trace reasons for some societies being richer and generally more pleasant than others. They found 3 main factors. First, resources. Land, Oil, Coal, Wood, Fish, Temperature, Rainfall, as you'd expect, having more of these (well, not nessecarily more temperature, but you get the idea) makes the land richer and more pleasant. Second, educated population. The education of your people decides what you can do with the resources at hand. This factor is atleast as important as the first, probably even more. Third though, and that's the one you're mentioning, a factor they label 'trust', though that is an imperfect word. It covers, basically, how much energy has to be wasted forcing people to play by the rules, and/or worrying over, trying to prevent people from breaking them. This factor, they claim, explains most of the remaining differences after having accounted for the first two.
|
|||||||||||||