Open source is liberal? Nah
BusinessWeek's Steve Hamm quotes David Kralik, director of Internet strategy for American Solutions, who believes that Republicans are gun-shy of open-source software:
Open source is a powerful force, but a lot of people on the right think it's liberal, and they don't want to be involved with it. They think if Apple likes it, they don't. That's a mistake. Open source is politically neutral. We should be using it.
Well, as an Apple-loving, open-source conservative, I have to say I agree. In fact, if anything, I believe open source is an inherently conservative ideal, making software a local affair, rather than a "big government" or "big vendor" affair.
But really, it's just technology, not ideology. Democrats can use open source. Republicans can. No party has a lock on .Net, MySQL, PHP, or (name your technology preference). They're just tools for getting our jobs done, and guess what? Open source happens to be a highly efficient way of getting an widening array of jobs done.
In this economy, that's something both conservatives and liberals need, and should agree upon.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
The trick is, a huge percentage of your open source advocate types and users ARE way left, and aim to use open source as a means of taking down certain private enterprises (often without much cogent thought as to what would replace them).
That bias in the population of the open source community, and their goals aside from the use and propagation of open source itself, certainly contributes to the perception of open source as a "liberal" pursuit (terrible distortion of that word though the current usage may be... people who don't like big government need to remind others that totalitarianism is the antithesis of liberty, not "liberal").
So is Democracy. You get nothing out of Democracy is you put nothing into it.
There is no central authority in Open Source (which would have put Marx off big-time). You can charge as much or as little as you want for it (again, a nasty ol 'capitalist idea).
And Windows is for lazy welfare queens.
And since when is .NET open source? (FTFA: "No party has a lock on .Net, MySQL, PHP....")
Your entire comment in a nutshell. "I'm not listening. Nope nope nope. Not listening." Try reading the entire book. Marxist ideals when taken to the final end actually remove all government, putting the power into the hands of the people. As for charging as much or as little as you'd like, when's the last time you read the EULA for open source? You can charge for changes that you make only, not for the basic software as you recieved it. You can charge for your services like installing that software or teaching that particular softare to other people, but you can't charge for the software itself unless you made changes that you will charge for. In other words, in order to get any financial productivity out of Open Source, you actually have to do some work and, since Open Source is made to enable everyone to be able to compete on an even playing ground, you'd better be damn good if you plan on charging.
Open Source has no "EULA" - true open-source licenses (e.g. the GPL) are licenses that apply restrictions only to those who distribute software, not end-users (end-users can do whatever they want to it and with it... until they themselves distribute the software). The "EU" in "EULA" means "End User", after all. ;)
And yes, I've read Das Kapital. While Marx advocated for absolute equality, there is a huge (and obvious) logical paradox in that it is 100% unenforceable without some sort of central authority to do the enforcement. Marx either knew that, or was stupid beyond belief... I'm thinking the former.
You clearly have no understanding of open source software.
I've used open source, read about open source, watched podcasts on open source and actually understand quite a bit about open source.
@Penguinisto
In that example you gave, tell me, did they sell the Linux distro or did they sell the CD? There's a difference.
If the software is open source, nobody can sell it. However, if they burn it onto the CD, they're not selling the software itself but the sevice of burning it. My point is still valid.
I have a friend who has developed a large community around biodiesel (specifically the production of biofuel from waste streams) and while it attracts your ecology centric tree huggers it also attracts the other side of the Bell curve - such as the people who want to pay for it with silver to avoid using US currency since that is just a plot by the government.
I think open source holds a similar, although less polar, attraction and more of the people I meet working on it would classify themselves as libertarian than liberal.
@MSSlayer
The comment you're trying to degrade actually had good points. Perhaps you might be able to write in complete sentences with a point rather than just trying to degrade someone next time.
I expect him to soon move on to 'cancer' and start whinging about 'intellectual property' as though such a nebulous term could ever take the complexities of copyright, patenting and trademarks and just lump them together as though they were the same, arguing all the time that those who choose to write their own software rather than pirate "don't respect others' IP" as though it weren't the dumbest most contradictory statement ever uttered by a CEO already. He's just the latest in a long line of ideologues who usually disappear the moment their 'infallible, shut up, you're an idiot' predictions are proven to be the opposite of everything.
I mean, he's already ignoring the amount of capital invested in (and gained from) F/OSS but then the grasp of economics he's displayed thus far hasn't exactly been stellar. Seriously, that last sentence is the biggest load of horse manure I've read in years. See 'only reason the GPL works or is enforceable' for why.
I expect him to claim any minute now that the GPL isn't enforceable. Go on, it'll be funny.
I'll have another guess: is he an unemployed programmer blaming the loss of his job on F/OSS instead of his own laziness and inability, just like all those 'blame the robots' factory workers before him and the lamplighters before them? Too lazy or proud to get out and retrain for a more suitable job?
Interestingly, there's plenty of money inf F/OSS for programmers good enough to charge a commission for making changes to software that won't get made otherwise and that's just one way to do business but this wouldn't occur to ITRebel because he's too busy 'rebelling' to actually think about it. Either that or the idea of actually having to compete on a level playing field seems far too much like hard work to him.
OSS has everything to do with valuing property rights.
You both have zero understanding of OSS.
How about you write a full blog and just link to it. Explain OSS to us "ignorant" posters. Oh right, you have zero understanding of OSS, you just like to say nobody else does in order to make yourself look better.
And, um...Matt? You're a conservative... on the left coast?! Is that even allowed?
Anyone who knows the Linux community knows right off the bat that any given government's politics don't mean crap - only the code.
Great discussion! I especially liked Penguinisto's sense of humor about Rush. However, I have to say that the copyright protection of open source would seem slim. If a Marxist regime like Vietnam slightly modified an open source program, would the original developer's copyright protection mean anything? Please see my set of posts today to Matt's article about 100% OSS in Vietnam. I am not a lawyer, so maybe an attorney can set me straight and tell me that I am incorrect, but this does not seem like much protection.
That is because you haven't wanted to put in the small amount of effort required to understand F/OSS.
You are incorrect like usual. You don't need a lawyer to get to the bottom of this.
"You know, I'm a big Mac guy. I love Macs, and I've got four Mac Pros. They're the top-of-the-line Mac Pros, maxed out. And they just had a new system upgrade, went to 10.5 Leopard, and they've had two upgrades since October. Yesterday brought 10.5.2, which was loaded. It was a big, big update."
ref: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021208/content/01125107.guest.html
As long as they provide the source code for those changes when they distribute it, I don't have to care. ;)
Your point about lack of centralized control would be something that I agree with, but my experience is the opposite. In advanced analytics, a small number of academics dominate the peer review system and the R open source programming language. You just need to see how they respond to anyone who disagrees with them in the R help forum or who references an analytical method that has not gone through their closed peer review system to get something published. Users of advanced analytics software know how to test whether the analytics work, they do not need to be assured by a closed peer review system that is biased toward open source solutions. The peer review system is more authoritarian and controlled by a fewer number of people than the most closed form of communist state media in the old Soviet Union.
Maybe you don't have a lot of experience with the peer review system. Einstein's famous collaborator Bose got rejected many times over and was only able to publish ony when Einstein went to bat for him; there are a very large number of similar examples. With advent of the internet and open blog forums, there is no need anymore for blind peer review. The peer review system is not quality control - that is what companies do when they test software. The peer review review system is designed to maintain control. The problem is that we are now talking about the same system that academic used to control publications now controlling software.
Oddly enough, it's not enough to pull a load of assumptions from out of your behind, do no research, not even bother to ask any questions and just make a ton of baseless assertions without foundation... which is probably the exact reason why you'd have a lot of trouble with peer review, because it expects you to do your homework and check both your sums and assumptions.
Given that companies around the world rely on peer-review to sort the science from the alchemy so they can use it in manufacturing processes without wasting time, effort and money it's interesting that you're so dismissive of it. You should especially look at exactly who funds research councils and who's on their boards ( try http://www.google.com/ it's this thing called a search engine).
I have been on both sides of the peer review system many times - meaning reviewer and submitter. My experiences have been both positive and negative - and that is similar to the experience of most who go through the peer review system - unless you are one of the few in control of an academic field (and that has been known to change suddenly over time). I would warn you that if you like free software as in free speech - linking it to the peer review system is going to make it the opposite of free. Companies can learn on their own whether a product is a quality product or not. They certainly do not need some ivory tower academic to tell them whether something works.
Then it's merely a competition of ideas (just like capitalism... go figure).
Also completely ignoring that there are many peer review bodies.
The only reason any peer review body has any power is if it has demonstrated time and time again that it allows through only that which has merit. Something else that doesn't fit with your argument.
If this were a bake sale to help someone or something in a local community, everyone would be 100% behind it but the moment it starts threatening profits it becomes evil? Isn't this democracy in action? How about 'God helps those who helps themselves?' I'm not religious but you should be getting the idea by now.
I think this proves that Microsoft's early FUD campaign calling Open Source "Communist" worked, at least on it's target market of CEO/CIOs.
What a strange message closed-source software companies deliver: "Stop helping yourselves!" That is, stay just stupid enough that you need to buy our software but don't get smart enough that you could develop your own tools and do it without us. At the same time they ***** there's no one smart enough to hire.
Do closed source proponents really feel better knowing that their money goes to things like buying Larry Ellison a $200 million Yacht?
What if that money would've been put into Open Source projects for your local government to save money and stop spending taxpayer dollars to upgrade to the latest version of Word simply because MS decided to change the file format for the umpteenth time?
Closed software is less about delivering what you need versus turning you into some kind of reverse ATM machine where the withdrawals will never stop.
Cheers to the true capitalists who have taken so many billions of dollars out of the economy and are just sitting on it right now.
Of course the money should go to his yatch!!! he owns the company!!!
if everything was free life would suck. there would be no strive to do anything, because it's all free, Thats why all open souce software sucks. Since the creators don't make a profit off their product, they act lazy and don't make a solid performing program. I implore you to prove me wrong.
and *** are u talking about using taxpayer money to upgrade to word. OF COURSE THEY CHANGE IT BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE SOMETHING BETTER. If word was open source we wouls still be using the same tools and UI from 1997.
Some people work hard for Open source, but in general, money is a much more powerful motivator.
- by massfat January 23, 2009 10:52 AM PST
- @everybody here
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by pentest January 29, 2009 11:02 AM PST
- "Why can't I just take the software and sell it? It's open source ain't it?"
- Like this
-
(40 Comments)This is all ridiculous! Proprietary software is absolutely necessary to forward evolution. There are ideals of open source software that are great, but there are also many flaws. For example, why does open source software have a liscense if it's so free? Why can't I just take the software and sell it? It's open source ain't it? Yes I realize it's to keep the software free indefinitely, and there's plenty of good points about that, which is something I support. Unfortunately, open source is not free nor is it perfect in any way. Most people who work on open source software does it in their free time. The reason open source software will never truly replace proprietary software is because people work for a compensation!
Who cares if the exchange is great? Who cares if the software keeps changing? Many people do. Unforunately, there is practically no such thing as "free" in this world! If everything should be free, then how do we determine whether one person's achievement is better? Does it mean that people who do nothing should be allowed to eat, drink, get free things? NO! Everything must be worked towards, and while Open source can provide an equal exchange, it is not nearly enough to replace proprietary software. People in the I.T. industry work because they want money, because they want compensation for what they've done. There are skills that are better suited to getting more money than others. Currency is a necessity in our world, because it allows for trade. Of course the people who made the software and are selling it should keep whatever amount of money they made! It's not a capitalist ideal, it's a fact of life! Basically, some of these arguments (not all, only the more ridiculous ones, which I won't mention by name) are saying that nobody should be rewarded for what they've done, and that everything is the exact same. Open source is not inherently communist, it is just a type of license that seeks to keep software free. There's nothing wrong with that! Neither is it affiliated with any liberal or conservative values. Proprietary software will keep the world running, while open source will provide alternatives, and spark up competition if there is none in the business world.
And as for if that money had been put into open source projects? Wow, that is ridiculous! People buy proprietary software for a reason! It's more reliable and is guaranteed to abide to laws the government makes! Why should money that somebody rightfully earned put somewhere else? If a person is willing to put that money away, sure, that's fine.
To the arguing of the peer reviewing, this is missing point. Peer reviews exist because of "quality" control that a certain party wishes to put forth. Obviously, this is still exhibiting control, and is not helping free speech at all. The problem is that free speech or so we call it is not always acceptable, neither is it always acceptable to law. For example, it is illegal to public deny that the holocaust didn't happen in some parts of the world. Is this free speech? No it's not, but it can be seen as necessary to stop slander, false claims, etc. Open source does have a peer review process, and that I believe helps to improve the quality of Open source software. Unfortunately, this is not catering to free speech beliefs.
Stop associating Open source with any political status, and start realizing that the fundamentals of open source software is merely to provide software that can be edited by anyone, while keeping it free for future editions. Open source software is not completely free, because it still uses license. To use open source software, the price to be paid is the agreement that you will forever keep it available for use to future users. Our world runs on money, and in order to continue evolving, there must be a motive for people to do things. That motive in many cases is money, and that's why there will always be a place for proprietary software, regardless of whether it is better or not. Just because certain people take political stances while using Open Source, doesn't mean it's inherently a part of Open source ideals.
You can, pay attention.
"The reason open source software will never truly replace proprietary software is because people work for a compensation! "
You need to pay attention, thousands of companies are spending billions hiring developers to work on open source software.
"Proprietary software is absolutely necessary to forward evolution."
It is absolutely not necessary, in fact it is often a roadblock to evolution.
"why does open source software have a liscense if it's so free?"
Because without it, it would be public domain. OSS software is copyrighted.
Yet another person who doesn't understand, and is too lazy to learn about OSS.