3 ms·
> Then again, it really begs the question, why don't we use any software that comes out of east Asia? Or let's say you buy into sales and profit and economics a
by ohazi 8y ago
> Then again, it really begs the question, why don't we use any software that comes out of east Asia? Or let's say you buy into sales and profit and economics and mom-and-pop artisanal crafts and whatever as being in and of themselves valuable. It's not happening in Shenzhen with respect to software.
Because the approach that Shenzhen uses for hardware is rarely the same approach that they use with software, and their software approach is generally not something to be emulated.
We may get a lot of wacky gizmos out of China, but the vast majority of them run unmodified or craptastically modified Android/Linux/vendor BSP.
The software model that's closest to what Bunnie describes in Shenzhen is the plain old open-source model. To get good quality software, you need to put significant time and resources into these open-source projects, and let people modify or fork them as they see fit.
Really, the goals are just different. The goal of the Shenzhen model is diversity - "there are so many products out there, what should I make that's a little bit different?" The goal of most software is arguably quality and reliability. There's no shortage of software with silly features, and it's usually easy to add a silly feature to an open-source project if you really want something specific. This is often the kind of software modification I associate with the Shenzhen model.
What's difficult is forking a project over an architectural disagreement and then fixing it, because you have to understand a lot more about how the software works before you can do that, and whatever documentation exists is likely to be in English.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago> The software model that's closest to what Bunnie describes in Shenzhen is the plain old open-source model My point is, that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright. So the thing we can point to as a successful (in some conventional sense, as opposed to idiosyncratically "pro-artisanal" Bunnie Huang sense) demo of his theory exists because of, not in spite of Western IP law!
- sgeisler 8y agoYou can make this argument when it comes to GPL software, since it forces you to open source your changes if you want to ship them. But does it hold for MIT licensed software (or if you are picky about attribution CC0)? Couldn't the existence of MIT or CC0 licensed open source projects disprove that > that model only exists if you respect the rule of law and specifically conventional copyright because these licenses are basically blank checks to do with the software whatever you want? They don't really depend on the existence of any IP laws.
- gred 8y agoI think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; your rights as the copyright holder are the only thing allowing you to authoritatively stipulate that your software may only be used in such-and-such a manner, under so-and-so conditions.
- sgeisler 8y agoYes, I understand that, but if there weren't copyright laws we wouldn't need a CC0 license for example, because it would be the natural state of affairs: you can do whatever you want. And afaik MIT, BSD and Apache just add the duty of mentioning the author, which has no practical implications on the usage of the software. At least I wouldn't care if someone actually writes my name somewhere. If someone asked me to relicense software I wrote as CC0 (and it was formerly MIT) I'd happily do so. That means that the open source movement doesn't depend on IP laws. Some projects might still depend on it, like the linux kernel (because of GPL) but bitcoin for example doesn't (MIT). Both strategies work in practice. ADDENDUM: What I want to say is: for many projects IP laws don't have any positive effects, they just add friction by requiring the author to add (and think about) a license.
- jancsika 8y ago> I think the point he's making is that all software licenses (including open source licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD and Apache) are built on copyright law; GP's point is that 3-clause BSD-licensed software makes such a modest requirement upon licensees that it's functionally equivalent to software in an environment where copyright law doesn't exist. I also assume that means that the GGP is implying that the GPL's "golden rule" requirement is a necessary restriction to ensure a healthy FLOSS ecosystem. Or at least that the FLOSS ecosystem wouldn't be as vibrant if 3-clause BSD were the only type of FLOSS license.