4 ms·

With copy middle there are always going to be examples of "x wasn't re released into the community." I think focusing on these is extremely short sighted. It ce

With copy middle there are always going to be examples of "x wasn't re released into the community." I think focusing on these is extremely short sighted. It cedes a premise that the way to judge the health of an open source paradigm is %_advances_open_sourced, or as a negative indicator #_advances_not_open_sourced. The true equation for the value of an open source paradigm should be: #_advances_open_sourced, and nothing else. It doesnt matter if 99% of advances stay closed, what matters is if there is enough value repatriated. Copy middle allows a company to take something open source, invest speculative resources on improving it, and it successfull sell for a portion of the incremental value - both improving the quality and decreasing the cost of software to consumers. Then, if/when a company tries this and fails to find a market, the advances sometimes/often get repatriated as part of the shutdown. Copy left tries to use anti-ownership ideals to ensure software remains free. This seems like a good idea, until you realize that copy middle effectively harnesses capitalist motives to make free software better. In my mind: Copy left is, by design, a virus. Copy middle is a symbiotic guest organism. I know when given the choice between a probiotic and the flu virus which I want to ingest into my body. I have the exact same preferences when it comes to what I invest in my company.

saurik 13y ago
This is your opinion. I will not even attempt to say it is not a valid opinion: a lot of people I know hold this opinion, and at least in the short term it seems to be a consistent opinion. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had "in the long term", but it is just that: a discussion. However, I am going to assert that it is, in fact, an opinion. The thing you need to understand is that the other side of this particular opinion does not actually care about either "#_advances_open_sourced" or "%_advances_open_sourced": the goal is freedom, not openness, and these are assets that are neither equivalent nor convertible. To put this into a very simple example: if Apple open sourced every single software component on the iPhone, that would be extremely "open". We would know everything about how the iPhone worked, and we'd have learned a lot as a community about how to build mobile phone operating systems. This would help other people and companies work on mobile phones, and might have positive effects on things entirely unrelated to mobile phones. To the people who care about variables related to "#_advances_open_sourced", this would be a great outcome, and "%_advances_open_sourced" is even 100%: seems great. But, in such a universe, I will argue that the users of an iPhone are still not "free" because they are unable to take the software running on their iPhone and replace it with modified software based on all of that wonderful open source code. In fact, lest you say "people then shouldn't buy an iPhone", it might be the case that users of any device are not free, because there is absolutely no guarantee in such a universe that any of the numerous devices that are based on this open source software--even if 100% of the software on these devices is itself open source--actually allow users to modify the software running on them (hence, GPL3). This is the difference between "free" and "open", and in my understanding this is why Stallman makes the points he makes: he doesn't care whether there are more cool and fun toys built out of open components, what he cares about is whether the toys we have restrict our freedom. It might be that a world where we are more free has fewer toys. In my interpretation, Stallman would consider that a "win" for mankind. In his mind, that argument "so don't buy an iPhone" seems to be related to the argument "so don't link against their code", and he wants people to stop: the idea is that if you don't like people restricting freedom, you should actively avoid yourself supporting it. (So, that's all I really have to say in response. However, if you--or anyone else--finds this kind of stuff interesting, I spent a lot of time a few months ago writing a lot about this subject, and in particular this tradeoff, in a comment thread on Hacker News when FreeBSD deprecated gcc. Of particular highlight, I go into detail on the property that GPL is more a license about binaries and hackability as it applies to end users than about source code and extensibility as it applies to developers, as well as why this causes debates about this subject among a bunch of developers to be problematic, due to the different incentives developers have from end users.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724
- thatthatis 13y ago
  My biggest issue with gpl/copy left is that it is a _kind_ of freedom obtained by forgoing other freedoms. It isn't a more _free_ platform, it is a more _open_ platform. If I work on a gpl product I give up important characteristics of ownership in that work. I lose certain freedoms to gain others. I define freedom as the ability to do as I wish. The gpl restricts that, and thus can't be said to be totally free. The gpl is an interesting and in many ways compelling philosophy, but it ties you to its philosophy - it doesn't allow you the freedom to follow your own. --- You mention long term value. I think that, like the medicine patent system, copy middle gives us higher long term ecosystem value at the expense of short term value. I should put my assumptions into an economic simulation some time and really model out the question of in which circumstance copy middle vs copy left gives higher long term value.
  - saurik 13y ago
    All freedoms are inherently subjective: freedom from slavery is a restriction on owning other people. This is why this discussion is so hard: the people who have to choose a license are the people who have to give up freedoms for others to be more free. One argument is that the second groups of people (end users) happens to superset the first group of people (developers) and is fundamentally larger. To maximize freedom thereby would have the developers "take the hit" (although again: developers are users, too). This is, in fact, precisely what I spent so much time a few months ago discussing: I encourage you to read what I wrote then, such that I need not repeat myself endlessly here. To be very clear: I directly address your entire concern about relative and subjective freedom in that precious discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 As for your comments on the short vs. long term issues related to "#_advances_open_sourced", I think that is an interesting discussion to have at another time, as it is off-topic today: Stallman, as I have argued, does not care about attempts to maximize "value" in the way you have defined it, whether in the short or long term; instead, he has defined "value" as "freedom", and I imagine (or at least hope) that a future where mankind is living without all the fancy toys we have, but where the things we have we actually own ourselves, with nothing between us and modifying those things in the way we please would be a "win". All attempts to maximize the thing you care about are, to him, probably nothing more than a distraction. Again: that's not to discredit the things you care about; it is only to say that the goals themselves are mere opinions that people have, and that to understand others requires thinking in their terms.
hnwhatevz 13y ago
My capitalist motive requires that the yucky viral non-incremental value of your post be repatriated from my brain and back into yours.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  Sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say.

saurik 13y ago

This is your opinion. I will not even attempt to say it is not a valid opinion: a lot of people I know hold this opinion, and at least in the short term it seems to be a consistent opinion. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had "in the long term", but it is just that: a discussion. However, I am going to assert that it is, in fact, an opinion. The thing you need to understand is that the other side of this particular opinion does not actually care about either "#_advances_open_sourced" or "%_advances_open_sourced": the goal is freedom, not openness, and these are assets that are neither equivalent nor convertible. To put this into a very simple example: if Apple open sourced every single software component on the iPhone, that would be extremely "open". We would know everything about how the iPhone worked, and we'd have learned a lot as a community about how to build mobile phone operating systems. This would help other people and companies work on mobile phones, and might have positive effects on things entirely unrelated to mobile phones. To the people who care about variables related to "#_advances_open_sourced", this would be a great outcome, and "%_advances_open_sourced" is even 100%: seems great. But, in such a universe, I will argue that the users of an iPhone are still not "free" because they are unable to take the software running on their iPhone and replace it with modified software based on all of that wonderful open source code. In fact, lest you say "people then shouldn't buy an iPhone", it might be the case that users of any device are not free, because there is absolutely no guarantee in such a universe that any of the numerous devices that are based on this open source software--even if 100% of the software on these devices is itself open source--actually allow users to modify the software running on them (hence, GPL3). This is the difference between "free" and "open", and in my understanding this is why Stallman makes the points he makes: he doesn't care whether there are more cool and fun toys built out of open components, what he cares about is whether the toys we have restrict our freedom. It might be that a world where we are more free has fewer toys. In my interpretation, Stallman would consider that a "win" for mankind. In his mind, that argument "so don't buy an iPhone" seems to be related to the argument "so don't link against their code", and he wants people to stop: the idea is that if you don't like people restricting freedom, you should actively avoid yourself supporting it. (So, that's all I really have to say in response. However, if you--or anyone else--finds this kind of stuff interesting, I spent a lot of time a few months ago writing a lot about this subject, and in particular this tradeoff, in a comment thread on Hacker News when FreeBSD deprecated gcc. Of particular highlight, I go into detail on the property that GPL is more a license about binaries and hackability as it applies to end users than about source code and extensibility as it applies to developers, as well as why this causes debates about this subject among a bunch of developers to be problematic, due to the different incentives developers have from end users.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724

thatthatis 13y ago
My biggest issue with gpl/copy left is that it is a _kind_ of freedom obtained by forgoing other freedoms. It isn't a more _free_ platform, it is a more _open_ platform. If I work on a gpl product I give up important characteristics of ownership in that work. I lose certain freedoms to gain others. I define freedom as the ability to do as I wish. The gpl restricts that, and thus can't be said to be totally free. The gpl is an interesting and in many ways compelling philosophy, but it ties you to its philosophy - it doesn't allow you the freedom to follow your own. --- You mention long term value. I think that, like the medicine patent system, copy middle gives us higher long term ecosystem value at the expense of short term value. I should put my assumptions into an economic simulation some time and really model out the question of in which circumstance copy middle vs copy left gives higher long term value.
- saurik 13y ago
  All freedoms are inherently subjective: freedom from slavery is a restriction on owning other people. This is why this discussion is so hard: the people who have to choose a license are the people who have to give up freedoms for others to be more free. One argument is that the second groups of people (end users) happens to superset the first group of people (developers) and is fundamentally larger. To maximize freedom thereby would have the developers "take the hit" (although again: developers are users, too). This is, in fact, precisely what I spent so much time a few months ago discussing: I encourage you to read what I wrote then, such that I need not repeat myself endlessly here. To be very clear: I directly address your entire concern about relative and subjective freedom in that precious discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 As for your comments on the short vs. long term issues related to "#_advances_open_sourced", I think that is an interesting discussion to have at another time, as it is off-topic today: Stallman, as I have argued, does not care about attempts to maximize "value" in the way you have defined it, whether in the short or long term; instead, he has defined "value" as "freedom", and I imagine (or at least hope) that a future where mankind is living without all the fancy toys we have, but where the things we have we actually own ourselves, with nothing between us and modifying those things in the way we please would be a "win". All attempts to maximize the thing you care about are, to him, probably nothing more than a distraction. Again: that's not to discredit the things you care about; it is only to say that the goals themselves are mere opinions that people have, and that to understand others requires thinking in their terms.

hnwhatevz 13y ago

My capitalist motive requires that the yucky viral non-incremental value of your post be repatriated from my brain and back into yours.

thatthatis 13y ago
Sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say.