Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 04:49, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 08:22:13PM -0700, Robert White wrote:
>>
>>>[I don't have employees and I haven't created a sustainable business]
>>>
>>>-- I also know a flawed business model when I see one.  
>>
>>Hmm.  With all due respect, I think that arguing business with someone
>>who has yet to be sucessful at it is not likely to help me or help the
>>open source world. 
> 
> 
> You are still making the fundamentally flawed assumption that there
> _has_ to be a business model in it by which you or I can make money. 
> 
> People are observing the way the world seems to be going; you seem to
> simply repeat ad infinitum "That can't be true because that way I can't
> see how to make money out of it".
> 
> You had a brief moment of coherency when you asserted that the
> prevalence of Free Software would see innovation grind to a halt since
> there would be insufficient motivation to fund large-scale projects, and
> hence proprietary software would prevail. I didn't _believe_ you when
> you said that, but at least I could understand what you were trying to
> say.
> 

The concept of "free sharing" is quite alien to many capitalists.  The 
capitalist mindset is that one must ultimately profit from their work. 
Some companies spend billions on R&D, but it's expected that that 
expendature will result in something to profit from in the future.  To a 
capitalist, it seems reasonable to assume that if one spends money and 
resources on developing software that one should be able to profit from 
it (directly).

As we see, capitalist economies are able to support the idea of selling 
software, as ethereal as it is, by creating rules that turn it from 
"copyable data" into a licensable product.

As they say, it's all in the mind.  When people choose to see software 
as something tangible and sellable, they will attempt to sell it.  They 
seem to have succeeded, so far, because they are able to convince others 
  (customers, etc.) to share their perspective.

There is the common opinion that software development takes WORK, and 
when someone wishes to be compensated for their work, they have the 
right to ask for that compensation.  Licensing software is one way to 
get that compensation.  On the other hand, hoarding is generally very 
counter-productive.  Copyright and patent periods are much too long and 
detract from the intellectual commons and technological growth more than 
they add to it.

There is a fine balance between the socialistic notion of sharing 
everything with everyone [see footnote 1] and restricting what you 
create so that you can capitalize on it.  Keep in mind that the most 
successful economies are based on greed, because humans are inherently 
greedy.  Capitalism turns human greed into something productive by 
fostering competition between entities who fight for a greater share of 
the same source of wealth.  Software, like anything easily copied or 
not, can be productized, as long as people are willing to pay for it.

People on this list talk about making software free as if it were a 
moral issue.  In Capitalism, the only 'morality' is imposed by 
government for the purpose of sustaining the free market (i.e. 
anti-trust law).  All that matters is (a) convincing people that your 
product is worth buying and (b) convincing people that you're better 
than your competitor.  If Free Software is to 'win' in this market, it's 
going to have to compete on the same terms as everything else.  What 
consumers care about is not "can I get the source" but "does it give me 
what I want".  Thus, offering source code for a commercial product is 
just another piece propaganda (albeit often a very good one) or another 
bit of added value (but not always).  But it is just one piece of what 
"sells" the product (even if the price is zero).

(One thing I think would be great is if companies were to open their 
closed source after some reasonable period has elapsed, where they have 
gotten from it a deserved amount of profit.)

Does information want to be free?  No.  Some PEOPLE want information to 
be free.  That's an important distinction that many Free Software 
advocates try very hard to bury.  Even the idea that technological 
advancement is important is not shared by everyone.  As much as we are 
bothered by someone that closed-minded, we need to face the fact that 
there are opinions differing from our own, and that there may be some 
logic behind those opinions.  The free sharing of ideas is a wonderful 
philosophy, but it is not a fundamental law of nature -- it exists only 
because we believe in it.  If you want someone else to believe in it 
too, you have to prove to them that it will improve their life.

And here's an important idea to consider.  While it may be provable that 
free sharing of ideas helps everyone, as a group, it may be detrimental 
to some individuals, such as those who would wish to capitalize on 
software as a sellable product.  I'm not a worshipper of Ayn Rand, but I 
also do not believe in foolish altruism.  It goes against human nature 
to completely free yourself from the idea of possessing something, which 
is why communism and pure socialism fail so miserably.  People have a 
fundamental need to be able to acquire wealth and possessions (or at 
least perceive that they are doing that).

I'm also a proponent of the idea of teaching a man to fish, rather than 
just giving one to him.  Rather than spoon-feeding people with whatever 
information they want to have, it is often helpful to them and to 
society in general for people to WORK to acquire knowledge.  This makes 
them into creative, productive people rather than leaches.  Some 
information should only be free once you've EARNED it.




[1] Socialism gets a bad rap due to lousy implementation, but not all 
socialistic ideas are wrong -- sharing is a good thing!  (Don't be a 
dumbass and tell me I'm criticizing open source by calling it 
'socialistic'.  I'm speaking positively about both concepts.)