Open source isn't any less evil than corporations

32 Comments

• I've always thought that Stallman and FSF wasn't very free at all. To qualify as Free you must be willing to relinquish any claim to the code. Fine, if you want to do that that is your choice, however Stallman and the zealots dictate that ONLY Free software should be used. So if you don't relinquish your code you are excluded from participating in the "Free" software world. Stallman wants to dictate what people can use by dictating what can't be included in his faux utopian society. He wants to be as exclusionary and controlling as the zealots claim Microsoft is. They're just a bunch of hypocrites.
  

• While I don't necessarily agree with everything RMS says and does, I'm glad he's out there; and I fully support efforts to get an open and accessible BIOS, and make it standard.
  
  
  
  While you may be correct in asserting that most people wouldn't care about being able to access and reprogram their fridge's firmware, some would; and the majority would benefit from any adaptations generated by that capability. Consider Free Speech, most people don't care that they can express unpopular political opinions without fearing jail, but they benefit from the the actions of those who do, and they have the option of doing so themselves.
  
  
  
  As for Microsoft, I live and work in an environment where XP boxes are becoming an endangered species; most of my cow-orkers are buying Apple or hermit-crabbing Ubuntu or Freebsd onto their ia32 boxes.
  
  
  
  And use MS on the server? It is to laugh. Who would waste that much time and money on something that requires twice the effort to stay secure?
  
  
  
  Of course, you are attempting to defend your economic interest, and no one blames you for that, we just won't let you do it at the expense of our freedom.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• "And use MS on the server? It is to laugh. Who would waste that much time and money on something that requires twice the effort to stay secure?"
  
  
  
  Spoken like someone that doesn't maintain Windows boxes. Been using them for six years, and never had a security problem I didn't create myself. Don't be a chest thumper. Any platform run by the inexperienced is insecure, and bad code can be written for any platform just as well.
  
  
  
  It's not about the size of your genitals, it's whether or not you pay for them, and how much that has to do with being evil. Or something.
  

• So, now being for free enterprise is anti-American?
  
  
  
  Wow. Was I wrong!
  
  

• "Spoken like someone that doesn't maintain Windows boxes. Been using them for six years, and never had a security problem I didn't create myself. Don't be a chest thumper. Any platform run by the inexperienced is insecure, and bad code can be written for any platform just as well."
  
  
  
  I don't maintain Windows boxes, but I know plenty of people who for whatever reason have to maintain heterogeneous networks including public facing IIS servers; and each and every one complains about the expense and effort of provisioning and managing those boxes., the only Unixish operating system that comes in for even same magnitude of bitching is RedHat versions older than 9.0.
  
  
  
  But that's not particularly material to MS being evil. The evil part is their anti-competitive practices (for which they were found guilty in court multiple times) and most especially their efforts to subvert and capture open standards.
  
  
  
  There's an immense reservoir of ill-will towards Microsoft out there, much of it justified (IMNSHO) by their efforts to own the customer base, and force people into using their products. That's an outstanding liability that is starting to come due
  
  

• "... I know plenty of people who for whatever reason have to maintain heterogeneous networks including public facing IIS servers; and each and every one complains about the expense and effort of provisioning and managing those boxes... "
  
  
  
  I'm going to take a educated guess here and say that they rode the short-bus to school. How fricken' hard are wizards to use? Point. Click. Read. Point. Click.
  
  
  
  Knowing nothing of DNS, DHCP, IIS, AD, Exchange, etc. I was able to set up a windows server with all of those services. No books, no classes, just wizards. The wizards held my hand each step of the way, explaining the difference between a "root authority" and a "secondary authority."
  

• Justin,
  
  
  
  "Which rights, set forth by the Founding Fathers, cover this freedom you speak of?"
  
  
  
  If I were to answer that question, I would say that it comes close to the right to bear arms and the right to redress grievances. But even those rights granted by the constitution don't address what I'm discussing. (Notice that I made no mention of *constitutional* rights. The fact that the constitution grants us some rights does not preclude the granting of other rights by instruments such as state constitutions or law.)
  
  
  
  Let me address the rights that I *am* talking about. I have the right to expect that if I pay $12,000 for a new car, that it will operate in a reasonable fasion and that I can fix it if it breaks. If I pay $12,000 for a new car and I can't fix it when it breaks, and the company who made it refuses to fix it, the state lemon law grants me the right to recover damages. (And, of course, the founding fathers had no concept of cars, so the rights for recovery under the lemon law are rights granted not by the constitution, but by state law.)
  
  
  
  "if I copy your source code I can copy and distribute at will, destroying any value that it's scarcity had been granted to it by the free market. You haven't execised your right to free speech, you robbed me of mine."
  
  
  
  Did I indicate anywhere that I supported the copying of everything? No, and I am insulted that you would imply such a thing. I would be more than happy to pay full price for Windows XP, Office, or other software packages if my situation dictated a need for those things. I've paid money for development tools in the past. I just try to arrange my situations so they don't need tools with proprietary licenses.
  
  
  
  Suppose I *want* to release things that I do so people *can* copy those things? It's my right to do so. Just as it's my right (and your right) to keep some of the intellectual property I produce (you produce) to gain monetary income from it.
  
  
  
  I fail to see how I'm "robbing your right to free speech" by using software that has been released for free, or by peeking under the hood of my car or my computer. Care to elaborate on that?
  
  
  
  

• Joshua,
  
  
  
  While I may have used the "you" pronoun in my argument I was referring more in general to the people who insist that the world only use free software devoid of any financial gain in lieu of some egalitarian vision. I don't know you personally nor what you do, so just calm down, I was simply framing my argument.
  
  
  
  "Suppose I *want* to release things that I do so people *can* copy those things? It's my right to do so. Just as it's my right (and your right) to keep some of the intellectual property I produce (you produce) to gain monetary income from it."
  
  
  
  That is exactly the point I was trying to get across. An environment comprised of only Free Software would rob you of that right.
  
  
  
  "I fail to see how I'm "robbing your right to free speech" by using software that has been released for free, or by peeking under the hood of my car or my computer. Care to elaborate on that?"
  
  
  
  So you contend that you aren't robbed of any rights because you have the choice of Windows XP (all proprietary) / Debian (all Free)*, which is correct, you make the choice. The point often made by Free Software zealots is that MS wants to eliminate the Debian choice to perpetuate their monopoly. The FSF WANTS THE EXACT SAME LACK OF CHOICE! Proprietary software cannot exist in an FSF world, you've lost your right to sell your intellectual property. It's the same imposition of will except with a phisophical angle instead of a monetary one.
  
  
  
  * Everyone: Please don't point out 20,000 different distros and their various licenses. The point is to establish the environment created by one group absense the presence of another.
  

• "I have the right to expect that if I pay $12,000 for a new car, that it will operate in a reasonable fasion and that I can fix it if it breaks."
  
  
  
  Apples/oranges example. If you can't fix that car, and you know you can't fix it, you're free to buy a different one. Same goes for software. If Windows or Office "breaks," you can't look at the source code, and you know that. So you don't buy it. The market decided.
  
  
  
  And comparing car repair to altering code, someone else's code at that, is like saying that because I can apply a band-aid I can perform brain surgery.
  
  
  
  You need a better metaphor, because that one sucks.
  

• "The market dictates what it needs, and companies make products to meet those needs"
  
  
  
  I argue that Open Source is actually _more_ market driven than Closed Source software. Once I license a piece of closed source software, I become tied to my vendor to whatever extent I need ongoing support for that software package. If I'm a VB6 developer, I have to go to Microsoft for ongoing support and product development, I am entirely at the mercy of my one vendor, a monopoly. (True, I could always reimplement whatever it is I've done in VB, but that represents a sizable barrier to competition).
  
  
  
  However, in the event that VB6 was open source, even if one vendor decided to stop supporting the platform, somebody else could determine if there was enough money in the market to justify offering support. With a big enough market there might even be multiple vendors, each equally able to offer support, and compete for my support dollar, thus lowering prices. In this manner, open source moves the market economy from license fees (which noone really cares about, after the initial purchase) to support fees and level of support issues (which are of critical importance to end users while they're actually using the software (which is 99% of the lifecycle of their software decision)).
  
  

• "The FSF WANTS THE EXACT SAME LACK OF CHOICE! "
  
  
  
  Even if they wanted to, the 'loyal opposition' to forces as strong as Microsoft and its army of lawyers and lobbyists don't have the luxury of taking half-assed positions...
  

• "Even if they wanted to, the 'loyal opposition' to forces as strong as Microsoft and its army of lawyers and lobbyists don't have the luxury of taking half-assed positions... "
  
  
  
  Fine. Take whatever position you want just have the balls to admit your hypocrisy.
  

• "Fine. Take whatever position you want just have the balls to admit your hypocrisy. "
  
  
  
  They != me.
  
  
  
  Personally, I believe that the market economy ought to be able to decide between the two license agreements. If there are real benefits to closed source, then pick a closed source license. If there are real benefits to open source, then pick an open source license. The key is that this choice be able to be made, hopefully with as much freedom to choose as possible. Lock in, doesn't help the matter any.
  
  
  
  From a developers point of view, rather than a consumers' point of view, I've said this in the past:
  
  
  
  "The only way the GPL requires someone to give away their personal property rights is if they agree to the GPL by writing code under the GPL or contributing to a GPL'd work. Under Linux, individual contributors can even retain copyright on the work they submit. If you don't want to give away the rights to your code you have a bunch of choices: pick a different license, don't sign over your copyright, don't contribute your code to a project with disagreeable license terms. Just like the choice to buy Microsoft software, it is a choice, with a certain cost, to contribute to GPL'd software. If you don't like it, don't make the choice.
  
  
  
  With respect to limitations of choice, the only difference in choice that I see is that I can't choose to contribute to or alter closed source software. I'm dependant on the vendor for fixes, for software support, for file format support, for hardware support, and for future evolution of the software. Just ask anybody who's sunk a bunch of energy into VB6 code: Why is making myself or my business so dependant on something over which I have very limited control better for a market economy? The answer is that it's not, you need more choice than closed software offers..."
  
  
  
  http://pensieve.thinkingms.com/CommentView,guid,1eab0c67-3e2a-427e-936c-1b03da573160.aspx
  
  
  
  That's nice and all, but wwhat I'd really like is for someone to argue effectively against my point regarding the market economy fostered by open source. Why should I pay for license fees that don't guarantee much of anything, when what I really want is software with a predictable lifecycle and good support for the issues I care about. The incentive structures are wrong in the closed source pay for license model.
  

• Joshua:
  
  You found the problem with the car, but you didn't fix the wire, nor replace it with a different wire that you felt was more appropriate. You didn't dstribute the new wire to everyone with the same model so that they could not encounter the same problem.
  
  I don't think it is a good metaphor, the car may physicaly be open, but you chose not to alter it for a reason.
  
  
  
  I'm willing to give away code sometimes, with a free use license, but not with GPL.
  
  
  
  If I can have better software (open,GPL,closed,shareware) for less money, thats great, but I'm not willing to to turn over my code as a price for working with it.
  
  
  
  An open source VB6, ugh, imagine the still-dedicated-to-VB6 users changing the Linux kernel.
  
  

• From what I read in the article, it looks to me like the main reason Stallman wants the BIOS to be Open-Sourced is so he can work around DRM. At least, that was the point he kept coming back to...
  

• "From what I read in the article, it looks to me like the main reason Stallman wants the BIOS to be Open-Sourced is so he can work around DRM. At least, that was the point he kept coming back to... "
  
  
  
  DRM is one of the ways open source could be shut down entirely. If operating systems need to be somehow 'signed' to boot, then there's not much room for open source OS development. DRM effectively takes 'root' away from computer owners and hands it over to hardware and software vendors. In my view, DRM is a way for Microsoft to align their interests with those of the Hollywood crowd.
  
  
  
  The saddest part of all of this is that it all basically amounts to taking away freedom and responsiblity from individuals. (Which were the principles on which the US was founded and became great).
  

• Did I mention that comparing car repair to writing software is insane?
  
  
  
  And who is making new VB6 apps today? Whoever the project sponsors are should be fired.
  

• " Did I mention that comparing car repair to writing software is insane?"
  
  
  
  You know, you're right! I am therefore glad I did not make that comparison.
  
  
  
  However, fixing software (and resolving software problems) is very much comparable to fixing cars (and resolving car problems). Such a comparison would definitely be sane.
  
  
  
  

• "And who is making new VB6 apps today? "
  
  
  
  Who cares who's making new VB6 apps today? I agree with you that that would be a _stupid, stupid_ decision. What matters more are (the tens of billions of dollars sunk into) existing VB6 apps. Those folks have no recourse, thanks in part to the closed source model.
  
  
  
  In any event, the VB6 situation is just one example of the perils of closed source software.
  

• Even if you're still band-aiding a VB6 app, that's insane. We've known it would go away now for at least four years, and while it had a place in the market, it was never a very robust platform to begin with.
  
  
  
  "However, fixing software (and resolving software problems) is very much comparable to fixing cars (and resolving car problems). Such a comparison would definitely be sane."
  
  
  
  In what universe? I could swap out an engine in a car, and I might account for perhaps .01% of the population. People that can fix software, that's like .0001% of the population. That's why those people make two or three times what mechanics do.
  
  
  
  And come to think of it, I've never had to, nor would I want to, "fix" code for an application I purchased. Neither would my mom or a secretary or an executive vice president.
  

• Alex Said:
  
  """
  
  I'm going to take a educated guess here and say that they rode the short-bus to school. How fricken' hard are wizards to use? Point. Click. Read. Point. Click.
  
  
  
  Knowing nothing of DNS, DHCP, IIS, AD, Exchange, etc. I was able to set up a windows server with all of those services. No books, no classes, just wizards. The wizards held my hand each step of the way, explaining the difference between a "root authority" and a "secondary authority."
  
  """
  
  
  
  Well Alex, all I can say is that people who do know their network protocols; and actually test the security of their installations and don't just throw boxes onto the network without understanding in detail what they are actually doing; find that Microsoft products require significantly more coddling and special treatment to achieve what they view as an acceptable level of security. And while I'm sure that being able to poke your way through the drag-n-drool setup wizard gives you a _feeling_ of competence and control; that does not substitute for the reality, as you will no doubt discover at some point.
  
  
  
  I'm guessing that it comes down to a difference in perspective; people who want to get up and running quickly, without needing to understand what their tools are doing in detail use proprietary tools and get vendor lock-in. Those of us who are building heavily used infrastructure that needs to run 24/7/365 and who therefore need to be able to adapt the tools to the task following good engineering principles use widely available peer-reviewed tools whose strengths and weaknesses are known and knowable rather than stringing black boxes together.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• "And come to think of it, I've never had to, nor would I want to, "fix" code for an application I purchased. Neither would my mom or a secretary or an executive vice president. "
  
  
  
  Why should we all be restricted to what you want to do? (Or your mom, secretary, or EVP.) One of the effects of DRM, by shutting down open source, would be to restrict us _all_ that that level, where we have to take what we're offered and be happy with it.
  
  
  
  99% of the time, that's what I do myself, but that extra 1% is too useful to give up, particularly for something as inane as copy protection on "Gigli".
  

• Dude... you don't get it. It has nothing to do with what *I* want to do, it has to do with what the *majority* of *customers* want and need, and how that relates to the vendor's business objectives. If anyone can be accused of screaming "me me me," it's you.
  
  
  
  If you want code you can mess around with, write it yourself or use an open source project, but don't be so bold as to declare anything that doesn't fit that criteria as "evil."
  

• "If anyone can be accused of screaming "me me me," it's you."
  
  
  
  That's not necessarily a bad thing. The capitalist economy is driven by people "screaming 'me me me'".
  
  
  
  "it has to do with what the *majority* of *customers* want and need, and how that relates to the vendor's business objectives."
  
  
  
  As long as vendors and consumers can continue decide between open and closed source license terms, the market can actually decide what it wants. If the choice gets forced in either direction, then the market is distorted and won't necessarily reflect "what the *majority* of *customers* want and need".
  
  
  
  "...don't be so bold as to declare anything that doesn't fit that criteria as "evil." "
  
  
  
  I'm not (even close to) Richard Stallman. Re-read the post I made on 4/5/2005 7:20 PM:
  
  
  
  "Personally, I believe that the market economy ought to be able to decide between the two license agreements. If there are real benefits to closed source, then pick a closed source license. If there are real benefits to open source, then pick an open source license. The key is that this choice be able to be made,"
  
  
  
  I've never declared closed source to be "evil", in fact, I've worked on closed software myself for the entirity of my professional life. That said, open source does have the possibility to be a better choice for valid "business reasons", and if DRM (or whatever else) makes it illegal to develop competitive open source software, then that is a very bad outcome.
  
  

• "In what universe? I could swap out an engine in a car, and I might account for perhaps .01% of the population. People that can fix software, that's like .0001% of the population."
  
  
  
  Jeff, where are you getting those numbers? I'd like to know what they're based off of, because according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2002 there were 499,000 computer programmers and 818,000 automotive technicians. Now, I understand that there are more people who can do either task that are not in either profession, but you seem to be basing your statistics on professionals only, as is evident with this statement:
  
  
  
  " That's why those people make two or three times what mechanics do. "
  
  
  
  Really? On average, the automotive techs I know make perhaps 75-150% of the developers I know (assuming an average tech wage of $40-100k per year, and an average developer salary of $40-60k per year.)
  
  
  
  So the numbers don't seem to support your assertion that there are 100x as many people who swap engines as who debug programs.
  
  
  
  Also, your headline is mis-written. Something like "The Free Software Foundation is no less evil than corporations" is more appropriate, as a software distribution method cannot inherently be evil. Even then you'd be on shaky ground, because the FSF only advocates freedom, yet Microsft has demonstrated evil actions time and time again (deliberately falsifying evidence in a court of law, bribing highly placed government officials).
  

• I'm surprised it took this long to get the black choppers involved.
  
  
  
  If you don't have developer gigs around you that pay more than $60k a year, you must not live in the U.S. I don't know anyone here that would even talk to someone for less than that.
  

• 
  
  "If you don't have developer gigs around you that pay more than $60k a year, you must not live in the U.S. I don't know anyone here that would even talk to someone for less than that."
  
  
  
  Really? What part of the U.S. do you live in - I'm guessing Silicon Valley or DC? There are plenty of opportunities available in rural areas that are in the $40k range, but when you consider that you could buy 10 acres and a reasonably-sized home for less than $120k (where something comparable in the valley would cost millions, if it were even available), that's not so bad. Even within the US, the cost of living can differ by factors of ten or more depending on where you are.
  
  
  
  In fact, there are companies built around outsourcing to rural US communities that offer rates comparable to outsourcing to India.
  
  
  
  And I'm sorry if I can't understand my own arguments, but where did black choppers come in to the picture?
  
  

• Cleveland, Ohio. And probably Columbus, maybe Pittsburgh. Cleveland is hot because Progressive Insurance can't find enough .NET people to fill the cubes. Even if you get in via a contractor, don't settle for less than $50+ an hour.
  
  
  
  I doubt there's anywhere left in Ohio within 75 miles of the I-71 corridor where you can buy 10 acres and a house for $120k. My .195 acres with a house was $180k and I'm not even in the same county as Cleveland!
  

• Oh yum. A job in a cube for a "Progressive Insurance company", churning the wheels of captialism so I can make rich people richer, all in the *lovely* surroundings of Ohio and its many *wonderful* cities.
  
  
  
  I'd need far more than $50 an hour and a "$180k house" to stomach that :)
  
  
  
  btw. Who cares how much your house costs? You only added that to flex your ego, not as part of any valid discussion.
  
  
  
  Hence the reason for this reply.
  

• A very veggie response:
  
  
  
  http://www.tallent.us/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=f08909fa-5437-4168-a2c9-1ba36126649f
  
  

• Don't be stupid Phil or start calling names like a kid. It's not about me, it was a response regarding the relative cost of living around here after Joshua's post.
  

• "I doubt there's anywhere left in Ohio within 75 miles of the I-71 corridor where you can buy 10 acres and a house for $120k. My .195 acres with a house was $180k and I'm not even in the same county as Cleveland!"
  
  
  
  Ok, I admit the 10ac/$120k was a bit of a stretch, but I've been looking for property around the Mt. Vernon (Ohio) area and I foud three properties, 5-15 acres, for under $140k. I did find one property of 13 acres for $125k.
  
  
  
  But back to the original idea. I know more than a few excellent technicians who work at dealers and make more than $50 per hour. I also know mediocre techs who make more than $25 per hour. Very few of the non-consultant developers I know make in the $50/hr range, and this is in Columbus.
  
  
  
  Of course, this is all a tangent because you still haven't proven how Open Source is no less evil than Microsoft. I can think of more than a few deliberate acts by Microsoft to steal IP, suffocate markets, and falsify court evidence. While the FSF promotes some interesting ideas, their actions are limited to promoting a system of economical thought.