Comments on: On Open Source and Communism http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/ about technology Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: qwerty http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-16473 qwerty Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:27:56 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-16473 <a href="#comment-243" rel="nofollow">@patrick riley </a> What makes you think OSS is public domain? If it were, you wouldn't need a license. @patrick riley
What makes you think OSS is public domain?

If it were, you wouldn’t need a license.

]]> By: qwerty http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-16472 qwerty Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:25:13 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-16472 <a href="#comment-212" rel="nofollow">@outliers </a> huh? The "market" is a myth. It is simply corporations setting the price. Do you really think that the "market" thinks Windows is worth over $100? @outliers
huh?

The “market” is a myth. It is simply corporations setting the price.

Do you really think that the “market” thinks Windows is worth over $100?

]]> By: Oliver http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-1379 Oliver Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:46:00 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-1379 @Azerbaycan Ucak Bileti: agreed.... with reservations. When I contribute code to open source projects I do it because the more I give the more I get. Those who can make use of the code are welcome to it, those who want me to use it on their behalf pay me for my effort. I benefit because my dvelopment time is reduced by being able to leverage the contributed code, my clients benefit because the same code makes a richer feature set cheaper to offer. The analogy linking life under Communism to Open Source is not accurate: developers are not required to contribute to the system and market forces function undistorted: where proprietary solutions are better than Open Source ones they flourish; where they do not offer any advantage everone is still free to choose to use them. It's the element of choice that is the distinction. The only time I can see a justification for claiming that software should be forced to be opened up is where bad grants of IP rights have unfairly and artificially distorted the market. @Azerbaycan Ucak Bileti: agreed…. with reservations.

When I contribute code to open source projects I do it because the more I give the more I get. Those who can make use of the code are welcome to it, those who want me to use it on their behalf pay me for my effort. I benefit because my dvelopment time is reduced by being able to leverage the contributed code, my clients benefit because the same code makes a richer feature set cheaper to offer.

The analogy linking life under Communism to Open Source is not accurate: developers are not required to contribute to the system and market forces function undistorted: where proprietary solutions are better than Open Source ones they flourish; where they do not offer any advantage everone is still free to choose to use them.

It’s the element of choice that is the distinction. The only time I can see a justification for claiming that software should be forced to be opened up is where bad grants of IP rights have unfairly and artificially distorted the market.

]]> By: On Open Source and Communism « aflexworld http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-460 On Open Source and Communism « aflexworld Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:40:25 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-460 [...] Open Source and Communism Miti, a friend of mine and platform evangelist at Adobe compares OS and Communism. Delicious. If McCarthy could read that, you’d have a new follower on [...] [...] Open Source and Communism Miti, a friend of mine and platform evangelist at Adobe compares OS and Communism. Delicious. If McCarthy could read that, you’d have a new follower on [...]

]]> By: Azerbaycan Ucak Bileti http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-317 Azerbaycan Ucak Bileti Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:52:21 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-317 The community should build software for itself and everybody should use the software! The community should build software for itself and everybody should use the software!

]]> By: patrick riley http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-243 patrick riley Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:22:51 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-243 this is an interesting topic, one I am particularly troubled about. Supporting the commodization of software by freely giving away code pretty much ensures I won\'t be working as a software developer down the road...I\'m taking the Kantian approach here, what if everyone gave away source code? Its been discussed in frequent rants on Slashdot about \"the race to zero\", and in essence I think its true. Its very likely software would become completely free and new innovations would quickly get replicated by the open source model. However, for this to actually occur, it would require a larger base of open source contributors to \"compete\". This is why your comparison of open source ideals with communistic ideals is valid, the end result is community maintained software and software innovators are not rewarded. While working with many \"bright\" minds at a software company, I came to notice a high number of developers contributed their innovations in commercial software products back to the open source community. This leads to some very important questions... were they doing this to simply gain recognition in the open source community? did they have ill-will against the company and not feel aptly rewarded for innovations? are they simply communist and against capitalism? I never ventured to ask, but my theory is the first. Many developers contribute to open source to gain recognition in hopes of meeting like-minded developers and probably to better their chances at landing that big job with the next hit \"start-up\". As a side note, and some more personal opinion, I think open source is actually being used as a diversion by corporations like Google, Apple, IBM, etc. They continually endorse open source (lets be honest, many of their products came from open source), make small innovations, publish under permissive licenses (like Google\'s Android & the Apache license), and then \"USE\" the open source talk as a way to promote their products and further interest in developing for them. Its also a way for them to quickly take more credit from open source innovations. What I\'m saying is, they\'re really hypocritical when they endorse open source publicly and keep privately their money making innovations. These are not true open source advocates. In the end, I\'ll be a supporter of BSD,MIT, and permissive licenses. Its great to give back innovations to the public domain, and permit your code in commercial software, and not pretend you are supporting anything otherwise. This allows the market to decide, and keeps crazy personas like Stallman out of the spotlight. Right now we\'re witnessing a bunch of pseudo-communists who are really capitalists underneath the covers. this is an interesting topic, one I am particularly troubled about. Supporting the commodization of software by freely giving away code pretty much ensures I won\’t be working as a software developer down the road…I\’m taking the Kantian approach here, what if everyone gave away source code? Its been discussed in frequent rants on Slashdot about \"the race to zero\", and in essence I think its true. Its very likely software would become completely free and new innovations would quickly get replicated by the open source model. However, for this to actually occur, it would require a larger base of open source contributors to \"compete\". This is why your comparison of open source ideals with communistic ideals is valid, the end result is community maintained software and software innovators are not rewarded. While working with many \"bright\" minds at a software company, I came to notice a high number of developers contributed their innovations in commercial software products back to the open source community. This leads to some very important questions… were they doing this to simply gain recognition in the open source community? did they have ill-will against the company and not feel aptly rewarded for innovations? are they simply communist and against capitalism? I never ventured to ask, but my theory is the first. Many developers contribute to open source to gain recognition in hopes of meeting like-minded developers and probably to better their chances at landing that big job with the next hit \"start-up\". As a side note, and some more personal opinion, I think open source is actually being used as a diversion by corporations like Google, Apple, IBM, etc. They continually endorse open source (lets be honest, many of their products came from open source), make small innovations, publish under permissive licenses (like Google\’s Android & the Apache license), and then \"USE\" the open source talk as a way to promote their products and further interest in developing for them. Its also a way for them to quickly take more credit from open source innovations. What I\’m saying is, they\’re really hypocritical when they endorse open source publicly and keep privately their money making innovations. These are not true open source advocates. In the end, I\’ll be a supporter of BSD,MIT, and permissive licenses. Its great to give back innovations to the public domain, and permit your code in commercial software, and not pretend you are supporting anything otherwise. This allows the market to decide, and keeps crazy personas like Stallman out of the spotlight. Right now we\’re witnessing a bunch of pseudo-communists who are really capitalists underneath the covers.

]]> By: m@ http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-224 m@ Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:43:02 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-224 communism had censorship and secret agencies, open source software doesn't have this as it can be seen by the user. communism had censorship and secret agencies,
open source software doesn’t have this as it can be seen by the user.

]]> By: klaut http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-221 klaut Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:21:00 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-221 Let me just point out, that open source doesn\'t necessarily mean free as in free beer. Yes, they do usually come hand in hand, but one does not imply the other. so yes, i am also a strong believer in open source software. ps. your security code is extremely hard to read. Let me just point out, that open source doesn\’t necessarily mean free as in free beer. Yes, they do usually come hand in hand, but one does not imply the other. so yes, i am also a strong believer in open source software.

ps.
your security code is extremely hard to read.

]]> By: cosmin http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-217 cosmin Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:29:21 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-217 The community should build software for itself and everybody should use the software! Anyone who is caught in the act of selling, buying or using commercial software will be prosecuted! Commercial Software is a CRIME! The community should build software for itself and everybody should use the software!
Anyone who is caught in the act of selling, buying or using commercial software will be prosecuted!
Commercial Software is a CRIME!

]]> By: outliers http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/comment-page-1/#comment-212 outliers Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:02:19 +0000 http://miti.pricope.com/2008/12/08/on-open-source-and-communism/#comment-212 why can't we accept both as they are? if creators of proprietary software think they provide superior content, let the market decide the how much their superior product is worth. The intent of the people seeding this debate is to make people draw lines in the sand where there are none. as long as people continue to take the bait by participating on either side, advancement via innovation will be suppressed by the idiots more focused on innovating their ability to piss people off than they are focused on promoting the growth of the very innovation they claim they are defending. In fact, the focus on innovation is fucking ridiculous, now that I think about it. This is about MONEY and who's "stealing" from who when the truth is that we've all taken from one another... let's stop defending our own hegemony in our little socioeconomic circles, stop feeling sorry for our loss of income or our suppressed potential, and simply create the best things we can because we appreciate our uniquely-human opportunity to manipulate the world around us with our minds - we can even actively control our own perceptions through awareness! Stop all of the fucking mindless dogma because its just stupidity and laziness and we all know we have more control than we act like we do. why can’t we accept both as they are? if creators of proprietary software think they provide superior content, let the market decide the how much their superior product is worth. The intent of the people seeding this debate is to make people draw lines in the sand where there are none. as long as people continue to take the bait by participating on either side, advancement via innovation will be suppressed by the idiots more focused on innovating their ability to piss people off than they are focused on promoting the growth of the very innovation they claim they are defending.
In fact, the focus on innovation is fucking ridiculous, now that I think about it. This is about MONEY and who’s “stealing” from who when the truth is that we’ve all taken from one another… let’s stop defending our own hegemony in our little socioeconomic circles, stop feeling sorry for our loss of income or our suppressed potential, and simply create the best things we can because we appreciate our uniquely-human opportunity to manipulate the world around us with our minds – we can even actively control our own perceptions through awareness! Stop all of the fucking mindless dogma because its just stupidity and laziness and we all know we have more control than we act like we do.

]]>