5 ms·

Being ideologically for open software and an open operating system is not the same as "hating Microsoft with a passion". Mixing these two different concepts int

by trezor 17y ago

Being ideologically for open software and an open operating system is not the same as "hating Microsoft with a passion". Mixing these two different concepts into the same bag is misleading, as the first one represents an ideological conviction and the other merely childish spite. And if you insist on being cheap, don't be surprised when it turns out that your free database was indeed some cheap stuff which doesn't come fully featured.

derefr 17y ago
It's a causal relationship. If you believe that all software should be free (the GNU folks—those "first kernel developers"), then you must at least dislike any company which tries to profit from the creation of artificial scarcity of software. The two groups (the idealists and the "haters"), which now have very little overlap, originally started much the same. > Don't be surprised when it turns out that your free database was indeed some cheap stuff which doesn't come fully featured. But if being "fully featured" is the goal, then it would be very surprising indeed if what you considered a "competitor" was not, in fact, fully featured. It would not, then, by definition, be a competitor. Or, at least, it would not be worth calling version 1.0 yet. To refine that: Oracle currently has no FOSS competitors, because there are no FOSS databases that are trying to compete with Oracle. They may be trying to take parts of Oracle's market share, but this is a different thing—optimizing their fit for a situation where Oracle itself is a bad fit.
- pj 17y ago
  I've seen the term artificial scarcity used a few times in this context. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? When I think artifical scarcity, I think something like DeBeers who has warehouses full of diamonds they are hoarding. Whereas with software, there actually is a scarcity of great programmers. There are only so many of them. With software, you know... it takes time and energy to support it. It costs money to write help documentation, pay for servers where people can download it. All that stuff costs money. Is open source anti-capitalism? Is the artificial scarcity coming from the thought that because software is just 1's and 0's that it can be copied almost infinitely? It takes a lot of time and energy to build something that is worth copying. What about all that research and development and risk that was taken to build it. How are those risk takers and R&D staffs going to generate a return on that investment without charging for the product they create?
  - derefr 17y ago
    Artificial scarcity is not an ethical or legal principle, but an economic one. Because 1s and 0s can be "copied almost infinitely", in order to make money on it one has to enforce an artifical constraint on the number of copies that are allowed to be made. The distinction is simply that with its opposite, natural scarcity, no effort needs to be made to ensure that each object has value on its own. To put it another way, the "default state" of a naturally scarce commodity, when it is simply produced and then discarded, is still high-value. It can be resold at auction, or traded in a market, and will be fought over even in a state of legal and moral anarchy. The default state of an artificially scarce commodity, however, is value asymptotically approaching zero; without some sort of agency to "prop up" its value, it is worthless, and no secondary party will assign it value unless it is forced to as part of a larger deal (e.g. accepting the legal code to be a citizen of a country.) Your question ("is open source anti-capitalism?") is just a matter of equivocation. Open Source fits just fine with capitalism, but it is not the capitalism you would first imagine (i.e. that of the US); it is instead "true", or lassiez-faire Capitalism. In Lassiez-faire Capitalism, there can be no artificially scarce commodities; they are simply a market inefficiency to be eliminated, along with those producing them. A true Capitalism would destroy the value in all "information products"—movies, books, music, games, and, yes, software. In a true Capitalism, value is just "what people are willing to pay"; you don't deserve an ROI just because you worked hard, you only earn money if people feel that your commodity has value to them. In such a market, the only software that could exist is that which was produced for other motives than profit—open source software—or produced as a means to an end of profit, e.g. software that makes a business process more efficient, rather than software that is a product in-and-of-itself. And now you see why we do not use such a capitalism ;) Though some "creatives" would survive, whether as on-the-whole consultants or by donations from fans (see http://pc.ign.com/articles/967/967564p1.html http://pc.ign.com/articles/967/967564p1.html), the majority would not. In reality, a majority of people desire to keep these creatives around and producing, even at the cost of large market inefficiencies. Realize thus that copyright, more than anything, is a form of socialism, in that it redistributes wealth to those we think deserve a "fair share" for their efforts. Sort of mixes up the arguments most people have on the subject: Open Source is anti-socialist ;)
    - 17y ago
- nailer 17y ago
  > the GNU folks - those "first kernel developers") First kernel developers like Linus, Ted, Randy etc aren't really GNU folks.

by trezor 17y ago

derefr 17y ago

It's a causal relationship. If you believe that all software should be free (the GNU folks—those "first kernel developers"), then you must at least dislike any company which tries to profit from the creation of artificial scarcity of software. The two groups (the idealists and the "haters"), which now have very little overlap, originally started much the same. > Don't be surprised when it turns out that your free database was indeed some cheap stuff which doesn't come fully featured. But if being "fully featured" is the goal, then it would be very surprising indeed if what you considered a "competitor" was not, in fact, fully featured. It would not, then, by definition, be a competitor. Or, at least, it would not be worth calling version 1.0 yet. To refine that: Oracle currently has no FOSS competitors, because there are no FOSS databases that are trying to compete with Oracle. They may be trying to take parts of Oracle's market share, but this is a different thing—optimizing their fit for a situation where Oracle itself is a bad fit.

pj 17y ago
I've seen the term artificial scarcity used a few times in this context. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? When I think artifical scarcity, I think something like DeBeers who has warehouses full of diamonds they are hoarding. Whereas with software, there actually is a scarcity of great programmers. There are only so many of them. With software, you know... it takes time and energy to support it. It costs money to write help documentation, pay for servers where people can download it. All that stuff costs money. Is open source anti-capitalism? Is the artificial scarcity coming from the thought that because software is just 1's and 0's that it can be copied almost infinitely? It takes a lot of time and energy to build something that is worth copying. What about all that research and development and risk that was taken to build it. How are those risk takers and R&D staffs going to generate a return on that investment without charging for the product they create?
- derefr 17y ago
  Artificial scarcity is not an ethical or legal principle, but an economic one. Because 1s and 0s can be "copied almost infinitely", in order to make money on it one has to enforce an artifical constraint on the number of copies that are allowed to be made. The distinction is simply that with its opposite, natural scarcity, no effort needs to be made to ensure that each object has value on its own. To put it another way, the "default state" of a naturally scarce commodity, when it is simply produced and then discarded, is still high-value. It can be resold at auction, or traded in a market, and will be fought over even in a state of legal and moral anarchy. The default state of an artificially scarce commodity, however, is value asymptotically approaching zero; without some sort of agency to "prop up" its value, it is worthless, and no secondary party will assign it value unless it is forced to as part of a larger deal (e.g. accepting the legal code to be a citizen of a country.) Your question ("is open source anti-capitalism?") is just a matter of equivocation. Open Source fits just fine with capitalism, but it is not the capitalism you would first imagine (i.e. that of the US); it is instead "true", or lassiez-faire Capitalism. In Lassiez-faire Capitalism, there can be no artificially scarce commodities; they are simply a market inefficiency to be eliminated, along with those producing them. A true Capitalism would destroy the value in all "information products"—movies, books, music, games, and, yes, software. In a true Capitalism, value is just "what people are willing to pay"; you don't deserve an ROI just because you worked hard, you only earn money if people feel that your commodity has value to them. In such a market, the only software that could exist is that which was produced for other motives than profit—open source software—or produced as a means to an end of profit, e.g. software that makes a business process more efficient, rather than software that is a product in-and-of-itself. And now you see why we do not use such a capitalism ;) Though some "creatives" would survive, whether as on-the-whole consultants or by donations from fans (see http://pc.ign.com/articles/967/967564p1.html http://pc.ign.com/articles/967/967564p1.html), the majority would not. In reality, a majority of people desire to keep these creatives around and producing, even at the cost of large market inefficiencies. Realize thus that copyright, more than anything, is a form of socialism, in that it redistributes wealth to those we think deserve a "fair share" for their efforts. Sort of mixes up the arguments most people have on the subject: Open Source is anti-socialist ;)
  - 17y ago
nailer 17y ago
> the GNU folks - those "first kernel developers") First kernel developers like Linus, Ted, Randy etc aren't really GNU folks.