16 ms·

The freedom to drink coffee

282 points by llambda 15y ago

babarock 15y ago
I really like that coffee analogy! I also like the idea that nobody's a loser. And the customer's happier. I'll go a bit further saying that, while nobody's a loser, I also understand the hippie's cry for a change: Everyone around him is buying espresso machines with pre-formated coffee capsules. The hippie gives away his capsules as whole grains; theoretically, it's the best way of distributing it. However nobody knows what to do with whole grains anymore. People chose the convenience of the capsule, and nobody cares to even try to appreciate this hand-made, fine grained, home grown coffee the Hippie wants to give away for free.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- camiller 15y ago
  The coffee analogy breaks down though because there are plenty of options for refillable pods for the "senseo" style pod machines. And Kurig (and others) sell a refillable K-cup for those style machines. Where there is a demand for something, someone will fill it.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    Additionally, the hippie could start fabricating his own pods that replicate the originals sufficiently to work in the manufacturer's machines. The equivalent in software is fast becoming untrue, as platforms increasingly take on tight control by the platform maker, enforced with cryptographic protections.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Well, that still as an analogue: jailbreaking.
iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
Crockford has total license to create any license he wants, of course, but I absolutely hate that license of his, not just because the lawyers are right -- "evil" is not a term substantiated with definition, and all terms in a legal document should be defined and specifc -- but also because insofar as he has expressed opinions about what constitutes evil, I disagree with him. The YUI documentation, and similar JS documentation from Yahoo!, is chock full of the term "evil" used as if it were an official technical term. At Yahoo!, it probably is. Crockford identifies certain features of JS as "evil" in his book. This is a generational divide between modern open source and ancient open source. In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable; in modern development, if you don't like a feature, you either don't use it, or you create a meta-language which compiles to your target language and excludes the undesired feature. Leaving the features out of "JavaScript: The Good Parts" was enough - if he'd left it at that, he'd have sent the same message without the weird moral condemnation. Technically, it's possible that using eval() in the context of any of Crockford's open source code is against the law. Even Richard Stallman has never been that much of a dick.
- raganwald 15y ago
  In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable; This in the middle of a rant that is highly judgmental :-P The simple fact is, in “modern" software development, you are free to route around Mr. Crockford’s license if you so desire. Being a “dick” and being ”controlling” would be to do something like patent his thingummy and prevent anyone else from using it or their own implementation of the same functionality. If you’re free to write your own thingummy, he is not controlling or judging you, he is controlling and judging himself by deliberately choosing a smaller audience/market for his work, much as the hippie in my story has deliberately chosen to make less money by not selling to the big chain. Don’t take it so personally!
  - iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
    OK, judgemental yes, fair enough, but not being a dick? Saying "you can't use my software because your code is evil" is not going to win anybody points for diplomacy. Also, the vagueness of it is actually quite passive-aggressive. In functional terms, putting that in a legal document means "you can use this for anything you want, unless I decide that I don't like it after the fact." It's not an important passive-aggressive action to Crockford, I'm sure, because for him it's just a formality he's turned into a joke, but it does actually set him up with ridiculous power to disrupt a business's operations should he so choose.
jfischer 15y ago
Thank you. I think the coffee analogy is a good one and I believe that it is important that we, as technologists, express our personal values through our work. Also, I don't get this "open source is socialism thing". Although some (e.g. Stallman) may wish to see a socialist coders' paradise, 1) he's certainly entitled to that objective, and 2) the open source movement is much larger than that. These days, picking a license is often just part of selecting a business model. Companies life or die based on the ecosystem they create around their software.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I think I agree with you, as I said, writing free software is more like going into competition with “The Company” than it is like organizing a union. Why not expand your ideas into a blog post? Could be excellent material...
  - demallien 15y ago
    Well, just to be a contrarian, I don't agree with your analogy. The analogy is more like the hippie selling people beans, but then putting a condition on the sale so that people couldn't then put the beans into a pod compatible with their favourite coffee machine. This annoys people for the same reason that DRM annoys people - deep down inside, we feel that when someone gives us something, it is now ours to do with as we like. GPL-style licenses break this unstated assumption, as does DRM stopping you from watching your favourite TV show on your media player of choice. In fact in the case of the coffee-growing hippy, it's worse than that. He doesn't mind if you personally take your beans and put them in a pod, but this operation is time consuming and requires a not-insignificant investment in plant to make the pods. It would be wonderful if someone else could start a business doing this stuff for you and everyone else, but they can't, because the hippy wants everyone to buy into their value system, using the oh-so-good coffee beans as a trojan horse. Yes, I know, you're probably screaming something about entitlement right now. But let's bring it back to software. Most people in this world are not capable of writing software, so they're thrilled when someone comes out with an app that meets their need just right. But then that app gets pulled from the app store because the author included some GPLed code. This is the equivalent of the kid with the bat losing at a match of cricket, so he leaves, and now the other kids can't play. They generally aren't impressed. Note that if the kid had to leave because it was dinner time, or his parents were calling him, or he just broke his arm, the wouldn't be any drama. I suspect that many people feel that someone pulling code from an app store for ideological reasons is more like sulking than leaving because it was dinner time.
joeyh 15y ago
Let's take the coffee analogy a little further. Not only is some hippie giving away coffee with a "do no evil" license, but just down the road there is a large market, where many people have come together to give away their own special variants of coffee. Over time, the many and diverse people in the market (which some might call a hippie commune, but the MBAs in the crowd would probably disagee) have agreed on some common best practices for licensing their coffee, which allow it to be mixed to form special blends etc. Some of the best practices are outright subversive, and have led, through network effects, to some of the coffee from this market appearing in many Starbucks coffees -- which are marketed as "fair trade". Although many of the people who buy them aren't aware of the details of how this obscure market has made the world a better place. Now back to our hippie and his coffee, which doesn't meet the norms of the market, so cannot be included in its blends, and cannot contribute to the ongoing network effect. Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- amirmc 15y ago
  "Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?" According to who's principles? (and isn't that the point of the OP?)
- funkah 15y ago
  I thought the hippie's goal was to sleep at night, now we have to compute the global utility function of his whole existence based on what Starbucks is doing? How does this apply to what raganwald is talking about? Perhaps this extension of the analogy has gone off the rails a bit.
- uiri 15y ago
  The market down the street and Starbucks will decry the hippie for trying to prevent them from using his beans. But they are his beans and he has every right to set terms and conditions of sale. His goal is that those who do receive his beans and make special blends, etc. will give the same freedom to those who end up drinking the coffee as they have with his coffee beans. If the hippie's goal is coffee drinker freedom, he is likely going to leave the world a better place. If his goal is spreading his beans far and wide regardless of the restrictions on the coffee drinker at the end, he won't reach his goal. (Or am I imagining a GPL vs BSD analogy?)
prestia 15y ago
Regarding the coffee analogy: Nothing would stop an individual from purchasing a large amount of coffee from the hippie, processing it into pods, and selling those pods through the big chains. Sure, the hippie could refuse to sell you more coffee, but then he is no longer giving "other people the freedom to make [a] choice compatible with their personal beliefs." While I like the initial premise, I just don't think this comparison completely fits.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nknight 15y ago
  Purchasing, yes. Purchasing. That's a rather important word. Consider its implications for a while, and I suspect you'll see the point.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    I don't follow. You can do whatever you like with gifted items too.
    - nknight 15y ago
      Free/open source software is not a gift, even an MIT license does not give you total freedom to do whatever you want. To make a pure gift of code to the world, you would have to put it in the public domain (and even then there are odd legal issues in some jurisdictions).
      - Dylan16807 15y ago
        Yes, but the point of the top-level comment was the analogy being a poor fit.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- pessimizer 15y ago
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
I get the feeling the vast majority of people don't have a clue what socialism even means. Instead, they parrot the silly definitions that come from sources using the term as a political cudgel.
- aMoniker 15y ago
  Thankfully, we have you to point this out for us.
puppybeard 15y ago
Argument which apparently led to the post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965 I love how oslic describes a dev who maintains their right to say how their work is used as a "protestor". Surely putting in the hard work, and being entitled to do with it as you please, is a cornerstone of free enterprise? In a funny way, the Open Source and related movements are rocket fuel for idealised capitalism. The first money I made on the web after college was made using Notepad++ to build sites on a LAMP stack. I'd guess most of us have similar stories. I'm happy to give away my knowledge for free, because it's not 1% of what I've received. And it doesn't mean I do everything for free either. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that people making free software haven't changed EVERYTHING in software, especially on the web.
nirvana 15y ago
This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.) Libertarianism is the term for people who believe in the Non-aggression principle. (NAP)[1] The NAP says "The initiation of force is immoral." Thus libertarians believe that it is immoral to initiate force (against the innocent) though it is moral to defend yourself with force against its initiation. Ragenwald rightly points out that the free software movement is more like going into competition with the company. Don't like the policies of a for profit (or even another open source) project? Build your own and compete. The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions. Apple excluding software that is incompatible with the kind of store it wants to make: Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression. The GPL restricting the way that software licensed under it is distributed or modified? Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression. The workers taking over a company and kicking the owners and managers out to run it as a "workers collective": Immoral. Using force to take property from others violates the NAP. Those same workers leaving to form your own auto company organized around your socialist ideals: Moral The difference between libertarianism (those who agree with the NAP) and socialists, is that socialists do not agree with the NAP. This may sound like a tautology, but how many socialists oppose: (just to pick some topical examples.) -- Minimum wage laws -- Laws that require companies to recognize and negotiate with unions -- Universal healthcare -- Mandatory coverage terms for health insurance All of the above require the use of violence (or its threat) to coerce people to act in a way that the socialists approve of. Libertarians (by principle) oppose these positions because they violate the NAP. Socialists often support them. Also, practically, libertarians believe that all of the above make people worse off, increase poverty, etc. The NAP is the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it. I've always seen the open source movement as intrinsically libertarian, and in a way, capitalist. If you don't like the terms of what's out there- compete. Getting others to contribute their time to make the product better is just an efficient form of competition. It works better for some types of software than others, but it is moral. [1] Its popular these days, especially among those who came to call themselves "libertarians" because they like Ron Paul, to think it just means "freedom". But this isn't accurate. The founders of the Libertarian movement were clear, and the Libertarian Party required all members to sign a pledge to abide by the NAP as a condition of membership.
augustl 15y ago
For me, free software is about practical concerns, not activism: I don't want to depend on one company or entity, especially if I don't pay them. But even if I do pay them, I'll have troubles in using their binary blob if they go bankrupt. So, it's about ensuring I have the ability to maintain control over the software I use in case the current maintainer stops maintaining it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
thechut 15y ago
Since when does a post about free software turn into a political discussion on HN?
lukejacksonn 15y ago
Socialist or Libertarian we should just look at the point being made.. Developers don't HAVE to develop for any specific platform. Corporations don't HAVE to distribute software they don't want. If you want your applications to be truly 'open' then develop them for the web and don't append a licence. The reason people are developing for platforms like iOS, is because companies like Apple provide an easy entrance to a massive market. If you want to tread on their turf, you have to play by their rules. And that is fair enough. If the big corporations are really getting it wrong, then users and developers alike will eventually abandon their platforms for a better one; and life goes on. If we want to make a change.. then manufacture better espresso machines, design more appealing pods or grow better beans.
smsm42 15y ago
I'm not sure the comparison to unions is proper. Let's see. Unions are about limiting freedom - limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money (with unions, they can't work unless they join the union, they have to pay union duties and they have to abide by unions rules), and limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them. Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway. Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff, not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely different league. So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of being in the same ballpark.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points just on the first paragraph: > with unions, they can't work unless they join the union Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either. > limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all. > limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.
Confusion 15y ago
I like this post and most of your posts. You have full freedom to spend your time in whatever way you want. That being said: I don't understand why you feel the need to respond to a silly analogy that someone wrote 429 days ago in a comment responding to a comment of yours. I doubt you are reaching anyone that would agree with this analogy and if you were, I doubt you would convince them of their silliness. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever (at least, it is completely incomprehensible to me and I don't understand how anyone could come up with it) and the clueless are usually so unconsciously incompetent they wouldn't understand your retort if it was covered in chocolate sprinkles. I feel I've been cheated out of a more insightful post by this 'oslic'.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I wrote the post back then, not today.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
Porter_423 15y ago
Really awesome writing.A true example of libertarianism. Thanks for explaining the definition of freedom so well,
toddkaufmann 15y ago
I think this is a good piece for what it addresses. However, market capitalism (or whatever it is we have) is more complex. This does not address the issue of monopsony: I may like my corner store, and spend my money there, but long-term they are going to fall to Wal-Mart because everyone ends up shopping there, because Wal-Mart has the power to dictate to its suppliers what the price to them will be. I guess the software equivalent is App-Mart. Similarly, if I have a cool new device, but major platform wants big bucks for me to get "certified" as interoperable or to include my driver, this could be a stumbling block. (However it seems like standards have really been adopted, and the internet is widespread enough that this might no longer be an issue.) Overall, I think the playing field is really being leveled now, with widespread network access and clouds and stuff. I (we) might be too exposed to the free and open possibilities, but it does seem like there is (has been?) a revolution. Is software political? After internet access being a basic human right, should the right to choose ones software be one as well?
itmag 15y ago
Personally, I think all ism-proponents are missing the point. De facto, lots of systems work and have worked. My own ideal system would be some kind of wacky mix of libertarianism, scandinavian-style safety nets, green politics, minimum guaranteed income, heavy state support for startups, etc. But I don't pretend that this is The Way. I'm much more interested in what you might call a taoist approach. To change the macrocosm, first change the microcosm. The key to everything is personal development. I think we as hackers can make a difference by influencing personal development on a wide scale. Case in point: e-learning sites like Khan Academy.
hessenwolf 15y ago
Writing free software is not like giving away free coffee. Writing free software is like design parts for coffee machines and giving them away for free. Software is the medium, not the content.
bsphil 15y ago
>I do not lose because I cannot run a free program on my iPhone. That's some peculiar logic.

282 points by llambda 15y ago

I really like that coffee analogy! I also like the idea that nobody's a loser. And the customer's happier. I'll go a bit further saying that, while nobody's a loser, I also understand the hippie's cry for a change: Everyone around him is buying espresso machines with pre-formated coffee capsules. The hippie gives away his capsules as whole grains; theoretically, it's the best way of distributing it. However nobody knows what to do with whole grains anymore. People chose the convenience of the capsule, and nobody cares to even try to appreciate this hand-made, fine grained, home grown coffee the Hippie wants to give away for free.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
camiller 15y ago
The coffee analogy breaks down though because there are plenty of options for refillable pods for the "senseo" style pod machines. And Kurig (and others) sell a refillable K-cup for those style machines. Where there is a demand for something, someone will fill it.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Additionally, the hippie could start fabricating his own pods that replicate the originals sufficiently to work in the manufacturer's machines. The equivalent in software is fast becoming untrue, as platforms increasingly take on tight control by the platform maker, enforced with cryptographic protections.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Well, that still as an analogue: jailbreaking.

iamgilesbowkett 15y ago

Crockford has total license to create any license he wants, of course, but I absolutely hate that license of his, not just because the lawyers are right -- "evil" is not a term substantiated with definition, and all terms in a legal document should be defined and specifc -- but also because insofar as he has expressed opinions about what constitutes evil, I disagree with him. The YUI documentation, and similar JS documentation from Yahoo!, is chock full of the term "evil" used as if it were an official technical term. At Yahoo!, it probably is. Crockford identifies certain features of JS as "evil" in his book. This is a generational divide between modern open source and ancient open source. In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable; in modern development, if you don't like a feature, you either don't use it, or you create a meta-language which compiles to your target language and excludes the undesired feature. Leaving the features out of "JavaScript: The Good Parts" was enough - if he'd left it at that, he'd have sent the same message without the weird moral condemnation. Technically, it's possible that using eval() in the context of any of Crockford's open source code is against the law. Even Richard Stallman has never been that much of a dick.

raganwald 15y ago
In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable; This in the middle of a rant that is highly judgmental :-P The simple fact is, in “modern" software development, you are free to route around Mr. Crockford’s license if you so desire. Being a “dick” and being ”controlling” would be to do something like patent his thingummy and prevent anyone else from using it or their own implementation of the same functionality. If you’re free to write your own thingummy, he is not controlling or judging you, he is controlling and judging himself by deliberately choosing a smaller audience/market for his work, much as the hippie in my story has deliberately chosen to make less money by not selling to the big chain. Don’t take it so personally!
- iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
  OK, judgemental yes, fair enough, but not being a dick? Saying "you can't use my software because your code is evil" is not going to win anybody points for diplomacy. Also, the vagueness of it is actually quite passive-aggressive. In functional terms, putting that in a legal document means "you can use this for anything you want, unless I decide that I don't like it after the fact." It's not an important passive-aggressive action to Crockford, I'm sure, because for him it's just a formality he's turned into a joke, but it does actually set him up with ridiculous power to disrupt a business's operations should he so choose.

jfischer 15y ago

Thank you. I think the coffee analogy is a good one and I believe that it is important that we, as technologists, express our personal values through our work. Also, I don't get this "open source is socialism thing". Although some (e.g. Stallman) may wish to see a socialist coders' paradise, 1) he's certainly entitled to that objective, and 2) the open source movement is much larger than that. These days, picking a license is often just part of selecting a business model. Companies life or die based on the ecosystem they create around their software.

raganwald 15y ago
I think I agree with you, as I said, writing free software is more like going into competition with “The Company” than it is like organizing a union. Why not expand your ideas into a blog post? Could be excellent material...
- demallien 15y ago
  Well, just to be a contrarian, I don't agree with your analogy. The analogy is more like the hippie selling people beans, but then putting a condition on the sale so that people couldn't then put the beans into a pod compatible with their favourite coffee machine. This annoys people for the same reason that DRM annoys people - deep down inside, we feel that when someone gives us something, it is now ours to do with as we like. GPL-style licenses break this unstated assumption, as does DRM stopping you from watching your favourite TV show on your media player of choice. In fact in the case of the coffee-growing hippy, it's worse than that. He doesn't mind if you personally take your beans and put them in a pod, but this operation is time consuming and requires a not-insignificant investment in plant to make the pods. It would be wonderful if someone else could start a business doing this stuff for you and everyone else, but they can't, because the hippy wants everyone to buy into their value system, using the oh-so-good coffee beans as a trojan horse. Yes, I know, you're probably screaming something about entitlement right now. But let's bring it back to software. Most people in this world are not capable of writing software, so they're thrilled when someone comes out with an app that meets their need just right. But then that app gets pulled from the app store because the author included some GPLed code. This is the equivalent of the kid with the bat losing at a match of cricket, so he leaves, and now the other kids can't play. They generally aren't impressed. Note that if the kid had to leave because it was dinner time, or his parents were calling him, or he just broke his arm, the wouldn't be any drama. I suspect that many people feel that someone pulling code from an app store for ideological reasons is more like sulking than leaving because it was dinner time.

joeyh 15y ago

Let's take the coffee analogy a little further. Not only is some hippie giving away coffee with a "do no evil" license, but just down the road there is a large market, where many people have come together to give away their own special variants of coffee. Over time, the many and diverse people in the market (which some might call a hippie commune, but the MBAs in the crowd would probably disagee) have agreed on some common best practices for licensing their coffee, which allow it to be mixed to form special blends etc. Some of the best practices are outright subversive, and have led, through network effects, to some of the coffee from this market appearing in many Starbucks coffees -- which are marketed as "fair trade". Although many of the people who buy them aren't aware of the details of how this obscure market has made the world a better place. Now back to our hippie and his coffee, which doesn't meet the norms of the market, so cannot be included in its blends, and cannot contribute to the ongoing network effect. Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
amirmc 15y ago
"Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?" According to who's principles? (and isn't that the point of the OP?)
funkah 15y ago
I thought the hippie's goal was to sleep at night, now we have to compute the global utility function of his whole existence based on what Starbucks is doing? How does this apply to what raganwald is talking about? Perhaps this extension of the analogy has gone off the rails a bit.
uiri 15y ago
The market down the street and Starbucks will decry the hippie for trying to prevent them from using his beans. But they are his beans and he has every right to set terms and conditions of sale. His goal is that those who do receive his beans and make special blends, etc. will give the same freedom to those who end up drinking the coffee as they have with his coffee beans. If the hippie's goal is coffee drinker freedom, he is likely going to leave the world a better place. If his goal is spreading his beans far and wide regardless of the restrictions on the coffee drinker at the end, he won't reach his goal. (Or am I imagining a GPL vs BSD analogy?)

prestia 15y ago

Regarding the coffee analogy: Nothing would stop an individual from purchasing a large amount of coffee from the hippie, processing it into pods, and selling those pods through the big chains. Sure, the hippie could refuse to sell you more coffee, but then he is no longer giving "other people the freedom to make [a] choice compatible with their personal beliefs." While I like the initial premise, I just don't think this comparison completely fits.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nknight 15y ago
Purchasing, yes. Purchasing. That's a rather important word. Consider its implications for a while, and I suspect you'll see the point.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  I don't follow. You can do whatever you like with gifted items too.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Free/open source software is not a gift, even an MIT license does not give you total freedom to do whatever you want. To make a pure gift of code to the world, you would have to put it in the public domain (and even then there are odd legal issues in some jurisdictions).
    - Dylan16807 15y ago
      Yes, but the point of the top-level comment was the analogy being a poor fit.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
pessimizer 15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

I get the feeling the vast majority of people don't have a clue what socialism even means. Instead, they parrot the silly definitions that come from sources using the term as a political cudgel.

aMoniker 15y ago
Thankfully, we have you to point this out for us.

puppybeard 15y ago

Argument which apparently led to the post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965 I love how oslic describes a dev who maintains their right to say how their work is used as a "protestor". Surely putting in the hard work, and being entitled to do with it as you please, is a cornerstone of free enterprise? In a funny way, the Open Source and related movements are rocket fuel for idealised capitalism. The first money I made on the web after college was made using Notepad++ to build sites on a LAMP stack. I'd guess most of us have similar stories. I'm happy to give away my knowledge for free, because it's not 1% of what I've received. And it doesn't mean I do everything for free either. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that people making free software haven't changed EVERYTHING in software, especially on the web.

nirvana 15y ago

This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.) Libertarianism is the term for people who believe in the Non-aggression principle. (NAP)[1] The NAP says "The initiation of force is immoral." Thus libertarians believe that it is immoral to initiate force (against the innocent) though it is moral to defend yourself with force against its initiation. Ragenwald rightly points out that the free software movement is more like going into competition with the company. Don't like the policies of a for profit (or even another open source) project? Build your own and compete. The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions. Apple excluding software that is incompatible with the kind of store it wants to make: Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression. The GPL restricting the way that software licensed under it is distributed or modified? Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression. The workers taking over a company and kicking the owners and managers out to run it as a "workers collective": Immoral. Using force to take property from others violates the NAP. Those same workers leaving to form your own auto company organized around your socialist ideals: Moral The difference between libertarianism (those who agree with the NAP) and socialists, is that socialists do not agree with the NAP. This may sound like a tautology, but how many socialists oppose: (just to pick some topical examples.) -- Minimum wage laws -- Laws that require companies to recognize and negotiate with unions -- Universal healthcare -- Mandatory coverage terms for health insurance All of the above require the use of violence (or its threat) to coerce people to act in a way that the socialists approve of. Libertarians (by principle) oppose these positions because they violate the NAP. Socialists often support them. Also, practically, libertarians believe that all of the above make people worse off, increase poverty, etc. The NAP is the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it. I've always seen the open source movement as intrinsically libertarian, and in a way, capitalist. If you don't like the terms of what's out there- compete. Getting others to contribute their time to make the product better is just an efficient form of competition. It works better for some types of software than others, but it is moral. [1] Its popular these days, especially among those who came to call themselves "libertarians" because they like Ron Paul, to think it just means "freedom". But this isn't accurate. The founders of the Libertarian movement were clear, and the Libertarian Party required all members to sign a pledge to abide by the NAP as a condition of membership.

augustl 15y ago

For me, free software is about practical concerns, not activism: I don't want to depend on one company or entity, especially if I don't pay them. But even if I do pay them, I'll have troubles in using their binary blob if they go bankrupt. So, it's about ensuring I have the ability to maintain control over the software I use in case the current maintainer stops maintaining it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

thechut 15y ago

Since when does a post about free software turn into a political discussion on HN?

lukejacksonn 15y ago

Socialist or Libertarian we should just look at the point being made.. Developers don't HAVE to develop for any specific platform. Corporations don't HAVE to distribute software they don't want. If you want your applications to be truly 'open' then develop them for the web and don't append a licence. The reason people are developing for platforms like iOS, is because companies like Apple provide an easy entrance to a massive market. If you want to tread on their turf, you have to play by their rules. And that is fair enough. If the big corporations are really getting it wrong, then users and developers alike will eventually abandon their platforms for a better one; and life goes on. If we want to make a change.. then manufacture better espresso machines, design more appealing pods or grow better beans.

smsm42 15y ago

I'm not sure the comparison to unions is proper. Let's see. Unions are about limiting freedom - limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money (with unions, they can't work unless they join the union, they have to pay union duties and they have to abide by unions rules), and limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them. Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway. Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff, not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely different league. So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of being in the same ballpark.

twelvechairs 15y ago
This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points just on the first paragraph: > with unions, they can't work unless they join the union Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either. > limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all. > limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.

Confusion 15y ago

I like this post and most of your posts. You have full freedom to spend your time in whatever way you want. That being said: I don't understand why you feel the need to respond to a silly analogy that someone wrote 429 days ago in a comment responding to a comment of yours. I doubt you are reaching anyone that would agree with this analogy and if you were, I doubt you would convince them of their silliness. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever (at least, it is completely incomprehensible to me and I don't understand how anyone could come up with it) and the clueless are usually so unconsciously incompetent they wouldn't understand your retort if it was covered in chocolate sprinkles. I feel I've been cheated out of a more insightful post by this 'oslic'.

raganwald 15y ago
I wrote the post back then, not today.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

Porter_423 15y ago

Really awesome writing.A true example of libertarianism. Thanks for explaining the definition of freedom so well,

toddkaufmann 15y ago

I think this is a good piece for what it addresses. However, market capitalism (or whatever it is we have) is more complex. This does not address the issue of monopsony: I may like my corner store, and spend my money there, but long-term they are going to fall to Wal-Mart because everyone ends up shopping there, because Wal-Mart has the power to dictate to its suppliers what the price to them will be. I guess the software equivalent is App-Mart. Similarly, if I have a cool new device, but major platform wants big bucks for me to get "certified" as interoperable or to include my driver, this could be a stumbling block. (However it seems like standards have really been adopted, and the internet is widespread enough that this might no longer be an issue.) Overall, I think the playing field is really being leveled now, with widespread network access and clouds and stuff. I (we) might be too exposed to the free and open possibilities, but it does seem like there is (has been?) a revolution. Is software political? After internet access being a basic human right, should the right to choose ones software be one as well?

itmag 15y ago

Personally, I think all ism-proponents are missing the point. De facto, lots of systems work and have worked. My own ideal system would be some kind of wacky mix of libertarianism, scandinavian-style safety nets, green politics, minimum guaranteed income, heavy state support for startups, etc. But I don't pretend that this is The Way. I'm much more interested in what you might call a taoist approach. To change the macrocosm, first change the microcosm. The key to everything is personal development. I think we as hackers can make a difference by influencing personal development on a wide scale. Case in point: e-learning sites like Khan Academy.

hessenwolf 15y ago

Writing free software is not like giving away free coffee. Writing free software is like design parts for coffee machines and giving them away for free. Software is the medium, not the content.

bsphil 15y ago

>I do not lose because I cannot run a free program on my iPhone. That's some peculiar logic.