If you ever dived into marxist theory AND practice, you would know that it
is the most costlier endavour of all times. It is monopol capitalism under
absolut state control - similar to Microsoft --:)
Definitly not FREE.
> silly ideas about changing notions of the OWNERSHIP of
> commodities that it is in HUMAN NATURE to want control and
> self regulate.
>
>======================================================================
>
>So now allow me to offer an alternate analogy. Suppose software is the
>CHILD of a programmer, rather than some chunk of LAND in a "NOOSPHERE"
>environment of ideas that is just waiting for some brain to "arrive"
>on the scene and stake a claim.
>
>Everything Raymond says about how software changes hands is
>true about how both LAND and CHILDREN change hands.
>But which one sounds better as an analogy for software project
>transfer? lets look at his property model, and you decide what
>fits better. Eric says: "There are, in general, three ways to
>acquire ownership of an open-source project"................
>
>(see http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/ for reference)
>
>1) Start a software project:
>
>Do you think its more like staking a claim to a piece of
>"unused land" (whatever that means.... i.e. is
>a forest "unused")? Or do you think its more like
>birthing a child?
>
>Well, it depends how you look at ideas themselves. Do they
>exist independently of people, of individuals? Are they
>conquered and can they be controlled by man? And to what extent?
>
>Or are they something that is created and unleashed on the world,
>perhaps controllable in its early stages and then progressively
>more and more independent as it is exposed to the rest of the world
>(and vice versa)?
>
>2) Hand over a project to someone else:
>
>Is it more like transfer of deed for a piece of land? Or is
>it more like transfer of care of a child?
>
>Well, you can buy and agglomerate land without ever setting
>foot on it. Transfer of land ownership is more about the value of
>the title than it is about using the land to do something. You have
>no obligation to DO anything with land you acquire, to improve it in
>any way. Second, it doesn't matter who you sell your land to. You
>don't care what they do with it (if they break laws, its the
>governments' problem, if they let it lie fallow, its up to other people
>to "squat it").
>
>By contrast, in transferring care of children
>the previous "owner" does not stop caring about the kid.
>Presumably, they care about the kid no matter whose custody
>the kid is in. You are going to make damn sure whoever is
>taking care of your kid is reputable, and someone you trust to
>take good care of the kid. Second, when you transfer control,
>you don't get money, you don't get tangible compensation, you get
>relief that the kid's needs are being taken care of, and that
>has its own, perfectly sufficient, merits.
>
>3) Take control of a project that is unclaimed or fallow.
>
>Is it more like squatting land? Or is it like society taking a
>kid away from a guardian who is irresponsible?
>
>Well, squatting land only leads to conflict if the land is disputed.
>The model is, you squat first, then if there are problems, you
>resolve them legally.
>
>With kids, people are a bit more careful. Before the state
>allows a kid to be taken away from a family and placed with a
>foster family, the parents have to be guilty of egregious violations
>and the state is very public about making explanations for why
>the change of ownership ahd to occur.
>
>Obviously, the second analogy works better. As proof, just think
>about what Eric said about how careful people are about
>approaching fallow or unclaimed projects. Sounds a lot more
>like the behavior of child welfare agencies than that of the
>squatter camp.
>
>===================================================================
>
>Now, if you've gotten this far and you're still with me, here's the
>problem with playing the analogy game. If software is like LAND,
>yeah, maybe its safe for the companies to move in and mine the
>inherent profitability of this wild intellectual frontier.
>But, if software is like CHILDREN, you've got an interesting situation.
>
>Children look like property, but only at a YOUNG AGE. As they
>get older, they start to look like independent beings. (I think
>ideas are the same way, but lets discuss that later)
>
>If I am an alien who beamed down to a courthouse and observed the
>goings on with minimal understanding of our culture, I might observe
>the way children are manipulated and controlled, and conclude that they
>are property. But if I stuck around to see them grow, Id see that
>as the world is exposed to them, and they to the world, parents lose
>control. And this occurs PRECISELY because of a process of
>PEER REVIEW. Its not really that the parents loosen their control
>on the kid, its really in the kid's nature. Kids take on a life
>of their own, and parental influence fades as a necessary, and
>usually unwanted result. This is natural.
>
>Its also the NATURAL COURSE of ideas. No matter what the idea,
>what the information, what the medium, the trend is toward diffusion
>and diversification. Corporations and governments often
>concern themselves with fighting this trend. That's what
>propaganda, media manipulation, and intellectual property rights
>are all about. Corporations need to own ideas
>and release them in a way that creates profit. And now Eric
>Raymond is busy trying to convince corporations that the
>open source world is safe and will generate profit.
>
>But is it really safe? Ideas aren't like land in a fundamental way,
>and Eric knows this. Ideas can be shared, painlessly.
>They don't need to be controlled. They don't want to be controlled.
>They are born, and the parental "control" they need is
>really just about introducing them to the world, motivating them
>so that peer review actually occurs. After that they become part
>of a community of ideas being shared and tested among a community
>of thinkers. Take science for example, and look at the
>fragmentation that occurs with different interpretations and ideas.
>You get schools of thought, infighting, etc. Science has been
>around a lot longer than open source and software engineering. I
>don't open source to end up any differently -- you see
>the beginnings with more complex software like compilers (egcs gcc)
>and different distributions of linux. Its not bad at all,
>but its not an idyllic pasture waiting for the corporate cows to
>come a-grazing.
>
>But personally, I hope corporations do clamber aboard this
>bandwagon, en force, now that Eric is working to
>convince them that its safe. When the industry
>starts moving into its adolescent phases, the fun will begin.
>As the software corporations come out of their shells, opening up
>intellectually, they will be doing irreversible damage to
>the foundations of their profit models, and
>if they continue, they will relegating themselves to
>service industry status. Sounds good to me!
>
>
>Comments, anyone?
>
>-C
>
>
>--
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Christopher Cantor
> Room 502, Dept. of Computer Science
> Yale University, P.O. Box 208285
> New Haven, CT 06520-8285
> email: cantor-christopher@cs.yale.edu
> phone: 203/432-0677 fax: 203/432-0593
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
János Löbb Tel: 203-737-5204 Yale University Pathology
Fax: 203-785-7303 310 Cedar St. Room BML104A
janos.lobb@yale.edu New Haven CT 06510
Never take a candid-cookie from a stranger.