I think it comes down to intent. The real 'spirit' of OpenSource seems to be a big 'F.U' to capatilism actually.. But there is more to capatilistic societies than capitalism.. And that is democracy and in a democratic free society you are allowed to express yourself and that includes by conditionally giving away your 'capital'.. But.. Jump back to the 'spirit' of OpenSource for a second and that 'F.U' intention.. There is another organism out there that get's itself inside of a host organism and then busily re-organises that organism to manufacture more of it'self... Sounds familiar to anyone who has caught a cold! It's amazing how close these OpenSource licenses look like virus definitions.. Easy absorbtion from low barrier to entry (free), Self reproduction (any other code that contains it becomes it).. Etc. And well like any other virus introduced to a host with no immune system .. It gets a chance to run riot for a while before the host recognises the foreign body. By persuing legal options OpenSource has revealed it'self as a malignant virus rather than a benign symbiotic one and the Software Industries immune response is kicking in.. White blood cells are being manufactured as we speak isolating the runaway virus' extracting it from otherwise healthy code and creating early warning defence systems such a company policies to recognise the viral code before it benetrates the code-cell membrane. All that has happened is that the confusion of the meaning of 'free software' exploited by this virus to gain widespread adoption has been better understood as 'not free afterall' and the whole movement will reach a new equilabrium once the commercial Immune System kicks in.. No doubt OpenSource and free software has it's place.. But as a 'F.U' mechanism.. It's had it's day and those clever chaps who invented it all can feel very happy with themselves.. Well done.. You showed em' James Caska www.muvium.com uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded' -----Original Message----- From: pic microcontroller discussion list [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:01 PM To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: SCO lobbying Congress about Linux > What you are saying is that profit is magically created by copyright > laws. Profit is created because some individual (or firm) provides the > solution to some other individual's problem. This value may be > protected by > the law but is *definitely* not created by it. > > Also, using copyright laws to enforce free distribution of > some good/service is really a contradiction in terms. Copyright laws > are there to > protect profit. If you choose to give away your profit, What kind of > copyright protection can you claim ? > > On a strict individual rights basis, you are free to do what > you like with your property and you are free to enter into an open > source license scheme if you want to. All right. As long as you don't > interfere with somebody else's property rights. This argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning and basis of capitalism. If the immediate application of this assertion is not obvious please bear with me for a few paragraphs. Capitalism is about the right of each individual to control their own capital. Capital is far more than money. (Money is of course just a "place holder" to represent capital). Capital can include financial assets (or things that money can buy), health, enjoyment of life and more. Capitalism asserts that each individual has the right to decide for themselves how such capital is to be traded or used. There may be forces outside their control which frustrate the manner in which they wish to exercise their rights (eg cancer destroys health, weevils destroy crops, stock markets crashes destroy place-holders) but (capitalism asserts) no person has the right to cause these things to happen without having arranged "terms of engagement" with the capital owner. A stock market crash constitutes fair dealing as long as everyone concerned has dealt in a manner in accordance with pre-agreed rules. Further to the above, each person has a right to determine what constitutes their capital as long as this decision does not interfere with other's rights to capital. For instance, if I decide that viewing beautiful sunsets (or sunsets that I decide are beautiful) constitutes increasing my capital then it is so. Unless, that is, I in some way interfere with someone else's right in the process. ("Hey you - I own that sunset - I demand a view of a beautiful waterfall in exchange"). In such cases a body of persons MUST agree to common jurisdiction to determine how such matters are concluded to everyone's satisfaction, more or less. Failure to agree to a common set of laws (effectively "terms of engagement" leads to anarchy. If I contend that the gold I find is mine because I found it and you contend that the gold is yours because it's on "your" land then unless we can mutually agree whether you own the land (or the UNIX code or ...) then there can be no agreement and even that wont help unless there are mutually agreed arrangements in place to cover who owns gold found on somebody else's land. In cases where mutual agreement is liable to be inconsistently arrived at groups of people mutually decide to set themselves up as authorities and enforce their will, by force if necessary. Such use of compulsion to enforce freedom is paradoxical and much railed against. Without it in some form or other, however, capitalism doesn't work. The logical extension of the "wanna be free to be a capitalist without restrictions" leads us to libertarianism. A libertarianism is a pure capitalist who wants the state to provide nothing but a strong police force to protect them from their slaves. But that's another matter. Following the concept of me being free to utilise my capital as I see fit without compulsion, I may decide that MY capital may be increased by "doing good" to others as I see it. Others may not see how such actions increase my capital. But, as long as I see fit to increase MY capital in this manner, pure capitalism says that I am utterly free to do so as long as I don't transgress others agreed freedoms. eg if the recipients of my largesse do not wish to accept my increasing their capital then I am transgressing their rights by forcing them to accept it. If I decide that others also should do as I do and increase their capital in this strange way then I am free to suggest it to them but if I compel them in some manner I am breaching capitalism's basic tenets. Capitalism includes the right to compete. Market prices are (intended to be) set by competition between holders of capital. As long as I use my capital in the market with the aim of increasing it in a manner that seems good to me (but may not seem good to you) I am free to do so as long as I do not directly inhibit your actions. ****Competition is an inherent characteristic of capitalism****. Freedom to decide how to compete is my prerogative, limited din practical cases by threats of force and regulation by mutually agreed governing bodies. So, what's this got to do with open software? If it's not obvious by now I probably can't explain it, but: Open software is a pure capitalist idea. Capitalism asserts that I own my own resources. My productive capacity, my intelligence and more are mine to utilise as I see fit. I can define capital as I see fit. If Bill Gates sees a world full of M$oft products as being the ultimate expression of the growth of his capital (subject, perhaps, to Mr Sherman's ideas) and Linux Penguin sees a world full of his software being the ultimate expression of his, they are free to compete to make it so. Who is to say who would achieve the greatest capital if they won? If I was able to choose between having acquired the capital of either of these two gentlemen to date it would be a very hard decision as to which I would accept! (Showing that I also have a $ driven streak within - and that I don't know how much Linus Penguin has in his bank account :-) ). Attempts to make me use my capital as I do not wish to are socialism. Attempts at coercion have no part in pure capitalism. Those who oppose purely capitalist actions are liable to relabel them in order to denigrate them. For example, Philanthropy - one version of this is the employment of one's financial resources on activities you see as worthwhile without receiving financial return - is a pure form of capitalism. As long as I do not compel others to receive my capital or to emulate my deeds this remains a capitalist act. Those who may find such actions not to their taste may, quite incorrectly, label philanthropy as socialism. Which, of course, it's not. Once upon a time in a country far far away from most of us (and quite close to others) there was a guy who got lucky in a big way. By discovering a quite trivial matter at an opportune time he was able to accumulate a vast fortune. he "discovered" dynamite. If you ask most people who the discoverer of dynamite was, or whether they care, the answer would be no on both counts. If you ask most people what Alfred Nobel did and whether they care the answer would be ..... . By using his capital to set up the Nobel Prize system lucky Alfie has generated capital which, in human terms, stretches far beyond the grave. There may well have been many richer men in his day but, if there were, few people know their names. If this sort of capital is not what makes you excited you are welcome to do something else with your millions. > This open source 'idea' is based on a flawed premise. If you include a > free spare in your car, does that imply that your whole car is now > free ? Mrs Kroc recently left $US 1.5 billion to the Salvation Army. There were very specific conditions attached. Effectively the SA not only do NOT receive the money directly BUT it will also cost them $US70 million over the next 10 years if they accepted the gift. They were not obliged to accept. They did. Of course. The owner of the capital may dictate the terms of use. If the terms are unacceptable the recipient may decide not to do business. If they accept they are bound by the conditions. Do you work by some other system than this? > And why such an absurd thought should hold true for software ? If you > include open source code in your proprietary algorithms, you must > disclose them ? Nonsense. This is shooting down an argument that has not been made. The true statement would be more like - "If you decide to include open source software which legally requires you to disclose the whole code that they are included in then you must disclose them". Absolutely! To say otherwise would be to equally approve of the concept that you can legitimately make use of Microsoft's code in your proprietary algorithms then you may do so with impunity and no need for payment or fear of retribution. OR If I find gold on your land / food in your larder / information on your server ... then I may acquire it freely and legitimately. Open Source does not COMPEL anyone to do anything. Open Source INVITES people to agree to their terms in exchange for certain benefits. Each person must choose for themselves whether the transaction represents value to them. > The end result is that nobody working in the real economy will > purposedly include open source code in his products. No. Nobody in the real economy who wishes to not open source their product will include (or at least admit including) open source software in his products. But, people in the real economy who do not mind open sourcing their code will gain the benefits of freely available open source software. To define "real economy" as covering only a part of the pure capitalist model is to blind yourself to reality and miss out on all the benefits that capitalism can bring :-) > It's ironic that the people who are for 'sharing' and not 'profit' > end up hiring lawerys to enforce their copyright free copyrights... No mention need be made of "profit", for or against, in explaining the open source concept. The term "not for profit" may sometimes be used as a shorthand way of saying "money may not be charged" but you CAN still profit from open source software. And people do. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads