Submitted by Richard Hillesley has written about the fate of various Sun open source projects since that firm’s acquisition by Oracle. He noticeably quotes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison as having said “If an open source product gets good enough, we’ll simply take it.”
I wonder if former OpenSolaris developers are among those who persist in rolling their eyes when Richard Stallman warns of the pitfalls of “open source”? I think there’s a lesson here for the pragmatists who persist in dismissing the social importance of free software.
Edited 2011-01-21 17:46 UTC
Thanks for re-posting it as a comment
I agree that it was a good point, but two paragraphs were too long for a mere quoted news item.
No problem. After submitting the original item, I started having second thoughts about the proselytizing I tacked on at the end. (Just for clarification for news submissions, should any editorializing be saved for comments?)
Well, myself I generally try to stick with quoting when possible and simple fact depiction the rest of the time in small news items, leaving editorializing for the main column’s stuff.
That’s because a subjective point which doesn’t have enough room to be fully explained and detailed is generally simply viewed as a troll, and answered by other trolls, in my experience of the web
Edited 2011-01-21 18:08 UTC
I’d like to know what the social importance of ‘open source’ is.
I’ll tell the practical importance of things like making sure you get paid for what you do. Making sure, your company has a good revenue stream renewing licenses even through down turns. Making sure people who have not invested so much time and money in R&D cannot just use some free software to undercut and everyone else and have a race to the bottom…
…
I say that lightly. I know the advantages of open source. I know about service contracts and the like.
It’s just in the world we live in… everything is based upon you having continuous cash flow. Everyone protects their trade and cashflow (doctors, lawyers, teachers, auto workers…).
The computer ecosystem is amazingly free. Much more so than the auto-sector. Have tried to read the ‘diagnostic’ codes for your car? You have to buy a special decoder for it. It’s nothing they couldn’t take two seconds to publish. But it’s revenue. Even the most closed proprietary software vendor is more open than the auto-sector.
In the world we live in, I don’t see the social benefit of open source over closed source.
Let me start at the most general level, and then work towards the more specific:
Your point of view is framed by the assumption that software is primarily an economic phenomenon, that it exists only to serve corporate owners, and that any benefit to the user is secondary to the profit motive. In my opinion, such an assumption is simply incorrect.
Firstly, the owner of a computer has a right to understand exactly what this software does to their machine and what it does with any data contained on the machine. This right trumps the economic prerogatives of any corporation. While a free market economy is a good thing, it should never trump individual rights or freedoms. (Once it does that, it stops being a “free†market economy.) And although the economic prosperity of any ethical company is a good thing, it should never be a social goal.
Suppose you hire an accountant to take care of your taxes. You, as their customer, have the right to know exactly what they are doing with your information. You would surely insist on them being completely open with you about what they are doing. The idea of them secretly sending your sensitive financial data off to unknown (to you) recipients would not sit well with you. This is the same danger that closed-source software poses to the user.
Therefore, because the law as it currently stands in most countries doesn’t recognize or enforce this very basic user right, it is up to the user to enforce it themselves by installing only free and open source software on the machines in their domain.
In short, free and open source software is about honesty, transparency and freedom. And that, in a nutshell, is the social importance of free software. (I’d get into the right to modify and distribute modified versions, but there’s only so much time in the day.)
Edited 2011-01-21 19:56 UTC
Also, you said “It’s just in the world we live in… everything is based upon you having continuous cash flow. Everyone protects their trade and cashflow (doctors, lawyers, teachers, auto workers…).”
In the world I live in, my doctor, my lawyer, my teacher and my auto worker better not misuse my personal information, nor do things to my body, property or reputation without consulting me, otherwise they lose my business. End of story.
As much as the above examples, free software is about the end user protecting their business interests. If such self-empowerment doesn’t sit so well with powerful corporations…too bad.
And as for the social dimension: when individual rights are respected, we have a better society.
Edited 2011-01-21 21:11 UTC
I wouldn’t hire an accountant because by handing it over, I immediately trust them with my data. If I wanted guarantees as to how they were to deal with my data, I’d make sure to find one with such policies…
BEFORE I hired one, I would assume he is trust worthy enough.
Similarly, before I buy some product, I *trust* that product.
That’s why we have regulations… which work to enhance trust. You *trust* the food at your local diner will not kill you because you trust the food regulations. You *trust* the bank will safe guard your money because of banking regulations.
Regulations are generally not pro-freedom. Some are necessary… but they’re not free things. Freedom is doing what you want as long as the other person agrees.
There is always an implicit trust in any transaction.
There is no user-right to know everything about a product. I have no ‘right’ to the blue prints of my Acura engine. I trust that it works based on past experience, auto regulations, other people people and their brand name.
If you’re the kind of person who wants to see the blue prints of an engine before you use it… well… you find a car company that is willing to do that and you buy from them.
Open Source Software says little about honesty, transparency, or freedom.
Of course ‘rights’ are a complex thing. I’m guessing you’re a positive right person who thinks of a ‘user-right’ whereby the government will FORCE someone to hand over their designs that they have put all the work into… to hand over to you… because you have a right to it.
I’d venture into the culture surrounding open source that is generally anti-freedom… but there’s only so much time in the day
Edited 2011-01-21 21:33 UTC
You bring up some excellent discussion points.
-Perhaps there *should* be “open source†auto engineering, with no proprietary technology being kept hush-hush. (Given safety considerations, this doesn’t strike as outlandish at all.) Moreover, if I don’t *trust* a certain auto manufacturer, then I’ll take my business elsewhere. (Hello, Toyota.) In this case, secrecy can cost lives.
-If a diner isn’t willing to disclose what’s on my plate, then I walk. With my trust goes my business.
-Rather than a bank, there is always the option of joining a credit union. (Free and open source software is sort of like that.)
At the end of the day, I don’t *trust* Microsoft, and despite them using BSD as their “under the hood†code base, I don’t *trust* Apple either. That is why I stopped being a Microsoft customer back in the mid-1990’s. You say “I’d venture into the culture surrounding open source that is generally anti-freedomâ€â€¦I’d love for you to quantify such a notion. And while you’re at it, please explain how you think the Microsoft EULA is paragon of freedom.
To sum up my position, the end user has the right to make any business decision they want according to what suits their own best interests. This includes the right choose a computer that gives them the freedom to install whichever operating system they choose, and to then choose whichever operating system and additional software meets their own personal standards.
The Microsoft EULA is not a paragon of freedom.
I don’t expect them to be.
But neither is open source.
And practically speaking there’s almost no difference between a credit union and a bank.
I live in Canada and have accounts at both.
Similar rates…
Similar services…
Heck, if I wanted a share of my banks profits… I’d buy shares in the bank.
But that’s all unimportant. Credit unions are allowed to exist. I don’t see them as any more moral or ethical or useful than banks. I see no benefit to belonging to one. If you do… wonderful.
I’ve always thought an “open source bank” would be really cool. Especially with all the ‘recent’ financial crisis. Maybe a non-profit bank ?
I do know their is a bank for financing open hardware:
http://www.oshwbank.org/
That is a start. 🙂
Here’s the problem:
Software is basically given with no liability whatsoever.
While if something bad happens to a car due to manufacturer’s fault, including the ECU software bugs, you will be able to sue that manufacturer to hell and beyond.
On the other hand, when I bought my Philips TV I got a schematic of the internals circuitry for repair purposes… You never get anything like that from the auto manufacturer.
And open source may be not about freedoms all the time, but it’s definitely all about transparency.
Not just agrees, but has the liberty to not agree or accept. If all financial institutions decided to add the mandatory clause to their bank account agreements stating that you allow them to sell your information, you don’t really have the liberty to not accept those conditions.
On that we can agree.
Open source is less about freedom, but more about transparency.
I can’t find the question. But someone asked me to justify how open source lives in a culture of anti-freedom.
Actually a recent case came up that really demonstrates this.
In Canada, we had the government remove the mandatory long form census. Basically, the law was you had to fill it in or you went to jail or faced a fine. This went beyond a normal census and into more detailed questions.
Now from a freedom point of view, this is ridiculous, and anyone who is pro freedom would be in support of the motion to remove the ‘mandatory’ part.
Yet, large numbers of people were against he motion.. preferring to keep the mandatory census and threatening their fellow citizen.
A lot of open source advocates (Michael Geist, Datalibre…) and many people I know who tend to like open source were against the motion, as they think more data is better in the hands of government. They would however probably want the data to be public and be available to everyone.
In a sense, open source people tend to be more ‘pro-transparency’ and very much live in a culture of anti-freedom.
I think it’s unfair to tag the entire open source community as anti-freedom based on anecdotal evidence about the opinions of some members that have nothing to do with open source or even software at all.
I guess that all depends on your angle. This reminds me of the debate about which license is more free, BSD or GPL. The GPL “forces” you to play nice. BSD advocates think this coercion is less free. GPL advocates on the other hand think that the idea that BSD license allows altering or using free code in non-free software limits the the freedoms of subsequent users and is therefore less free.
Edited 2011-01-24 00:31 UTC
I think if I go to the car dealer of brand of car I bought (even if it was some where else) I think they are obliged to give me a blueprint, even of the wiring.
Not that it solves anything, these days cars are made with all kinds of ‘blackboxes’ and all you can do is buy new blackboxes for a lot of money when your car breaks.
Companies can only sell software to users if it has benefits for them.
But I see you have bought into Stallman’s claim of open source being a right.
He can sit on the toilet and declare software rights all day long but that doesn’t change the fact that most software cannot be sold with open source business models.
Just ask Java founder James Gosling
http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/desktop_linux_the_dream_is
For one thing, Richard Stallman would never make any claims for open source. (He’s notoriously picky about wording. He would claim free software is a right.)
In any case, when I refer to software freedom being a right, I’m not talking about a right enshrined in a constitution, but a legal right asserted by the user through the use of software licensed under the GPL, BSD or some similar free or open source software license. Because I feel I have a moral right to read and modify source code, as well as share modified or unmodified versions of it, I stick with free and open source software.
With closed-source software, such as Microsoft Windows, you have no legal rights, only obligations, if you choose to use it. A free operating system such as GNU/Linux or FreeBSD, on the other hand, enables the user to follow a different path.
As for business models…who cares? People (and groups of people) write software for a variety reason. In the FOSS world, the motivation is usually to address one’s own technological needs, to learn by doing, or to simply scratch an itch. Whether or not they make money from it, free software contributors already feel they’re being rewarded for their involvement.
Edited 2011-01-24 04:03 UTC
A social benefit: I had a friend in need of a machine, we had some old hardware laying around that could be picked through for parts. We still needed an OS; Debian to the rescue. The social benefit is that I was able to help a friend for the price of scrap parts laying about and without infringing copyright to stock it fully with software.
I’ve also been able fix many machines because the needed tools where FOSS licensed. All those shnazzy liveCD are a good example that has exploded after developing it for Knoppix.
More social benefits; everyone gets transparency for discovered bugs and faster patch turn around after bug reports. Two different distributions can compete for users while colaborating on development; they really do get to have it both ways. Everybody contributes fixes and finds bugs and benefits while everybody remains free to differentiate their projects.
You also pay a lower price per license for Windows because of FOSS developed products driving competition.
There is also a difference between driving prices down and driving product quality down. FOSS tends to drive prices down rather than quality; if proprietary competition can’t justify it’s prices or cuts quality further to maintain profits…?
You’re entire argument there is almost all economic.
It’s cheaper for users is basically what you said.
Would you then agree that off shoring all jobs to China would be a ‘social’ benefit because it makes good cheaper.
My argument is that an equally valid social benefit comes from protecting the source as it relates to those working.
Please explain how the following is a “economic” argument:
“More social benefits; everyone gets transparency for discovered bugs and faster patch turn around after bug reports. Two different distributions can compete for users while colaborating on development; they really do get to have it both ways. Everybody contributes fixes and finds bugs and benefits while everybody remains free to differentiate their projects.”
Also, it’s not reusing old computers with free software that drives jobs to China.
Just to make sure you’re not an android, please tell the rest of us which segment of society is responsible for sending jobs to China.
Edited 2011-01-21 21:54 UTC
FYI…
Japan has often used it as a social benefit to make perfectly old goods obsolete… thus forcing people to get new ones.
This is done for the net social benefit of keeping people employed and the latest technology in society.
Social benefit depends on who what your goal is and who you’re talking to.
Economic coercion is never a social benefit. Any industry that bases its profits on people being “forced” into buying upgraded products manufactured in foreign sweatshops by workers who are continuously subjected to unsafe, unhealthy and degrading working conditions does not present a social benefit to anyone but the shareholders.
It is up to us, the stakeholders of the economy, to look out for our own interests first, either individually and collectively. Using and contributing to free software is but one way many of us choose to do this.
I think you just described Apple to a T in that paragraph.
That was not a comment for you… but for jabbot.
The threading might be off.\
Edited 2011-01-21 22:00 UTC
I notice you haven’t answer the question though. More informed discovery of bugs. Faster turn around time. Social pressures that motivate developers to produce clean code and fix bugs quickly.
I don’t see any evidence of those as being intrinsic to open source as opposed to closed source.
Social pressure to produce good code… ummm… we have code reviews at work and the same pressures exist. Not to mention the manager…
Most open source is written by small groups of people no different from any commercial project.
You are basing your opinion on that the context is US. In basically every other country, installing F/OSS on an old computer and reusing it is a NET benefit to that country.
Well actually I’m Canadian.
But yes… ‘social benefit’ depends on where you live and what your goals are.
Outsourcing and offshoring is a net social benefit for India/China… not so much for North America.
There is little morality involved in the social benefit argument… it just depends on whose benefiting.
Which is why I say an ‘equally’ valid case exists for social benefit when opposing open source.
Edited 2011-01-21 23:02 UTC
So, it’s an economic benefit when I can enable someone’s computing ability easily and legally without asking permission from an unrelated third party in the form of software licenses and hardware purchases. (Is it also an economic benefit if I can knit a sweater for a neighbor who gets cold during the winter?)
But, it’s a social benefit when you talk about sending jobs overseas reducing the local companies expenses and increasing wages received by foreign citizens.
My helping a friend is economic while your off-shoring jobs is social? Are you sure you don’t have the terms reversed?
I thought this may clarify in a more productive way:
Offshoring is the result of an economic decision though it also has some lesser social benefits in the form if increases earnings in the foreign nation. The choice is to realize lesser expenses by paying lesser expenses for the same work. A company does not offshore jobs because it wants to improve the living conditions of the foreign citizens; it wants to increase profits by decreasing expenses.
When I assembled a machine for a friend it was a social decision which happened to have some economic benefits. The choice was to enable Bob’s access to information; this is a social norm where lack of which puts people at a disadvantage in society. This is no different than seeing that Bob needs a sweater and producing one for him; not because it’s to bob’s economic benefit to not spend money on a sweater.. because he’s cold.
Your perception is similar to some kids who have yet to spend a significant amount of time in the labor force, and yet wonder why organized labor is necessary. While they enjoy their 8 hr work day, weekends, vacation time, and in some cases guaranteed retirement.
If you can’t see the impact of open source vs. closed source… probably you have never spent a significant amount of time developing actual code.
Stallman’s personality may collide with some people, however there is no denying that right now people have access to a very large (and with relatively good quality) collection of free development tools. Stuff that in previous decades would have cost an arm and a leg. GNU opened the door to software development to a large number of people who would have been unable to enter the field otherwise. [
Edited 2011-01-22 04:25 UTC
I know a lot of people have already chimed in on this in various ways, but I wanted to include my 2 cents as well. As a former health care professional and now an instructor for various pharmacy classes I can safely say that the best way I protect my cash flow is by being good at what I do. There is nothing top secret about how I teach.
I post all my presentations and lecture notes on-line for my students including the occasional video of some of my lectures. I use relatively few textbooks as health care changes so rapidly that it is hard to keep most textbooks current. I do use a textbooks for pharmacy math, but I am in the process of switching over to my own math book that I’m developing under the GPL (you can find it at http://pharmaceuticalcalculations.org ).
My students and my director give me very good reviews every semester and I would argue that my teaching style and lecture material is definitely based on the principles of F/OSS. Therefore, I can argue that F/OSS protects my cash flow and I would wager that many other professionals could chime in on the importance of transparency provided by such methodologies.
OpenSolaris is being totally opened as we speak. It is called OpenIndiana, based on Illumos (former OpenSolaris) source code. There was some closed parts in OpenSolaris, but they are being rewritten to be totally open.
So, OpenSolaris developers have no problems. The Solaris community is quite big.
That may be but the OpenSolaris developer community is quite small.
I was following the Jython project and even use it a little at work, but the route Java is going now… I just wanna stay as far away from it as I can.
So.. what is that route?
He’s probably mad, because Java 7 VM’s will have the invokedynamic for dynamically typed languages, like Python.
Larry Ellison found to be a jerk. In related news, Bernie Madoff found to be a fraudster.