3 ms·

But, it is! The question is, are we as humanity entitled to previous work after $period_or_event? (I would argue that yes! we are! after... some debatable peri

by pnathan 12y ago

But, it is! The question is, are we as humanity entitled to previous work after $period_or_event? (I would argue that yes! we are! after... some debatable period or time, and I would argue that not all that can be recovered is worth recovering, but those are strictly subsidiary from the question).

tptacek 12y ago
Just to be clear: at issue here isn't whether some piece of code scraped from an HTTP response or found without a license on Github should revert to the public domain. The specific entitlement we are discussing is whether work you produce on your own in private, without ever revealing it to the public, is so encumbered by the entitlement of strangers that you have a duty to furnish it. That's what people who cajole business owners over open-sourcing their failed projects are asserting.
- pnathan 12y ago
  Absolutely. To be crystal clear, I am discussing whether the technical & intellectual work produced as part of your (as commonly understood by the layperson) property and business, ought (as a duty) to be furnished by the creator/owner under some license to the broader world in some sense (whether by specific request or generalized publishing). I argue that, generally, if said piece of property has no other encumbrance, then after some event or period of time, if this property is not providing value, the creator/owner should yield the property to the broad public, as their duty to society. In particular, I am not asserting that they have a duty to make it useable or useful, or have a duty to do anything besides a tar ball or the moral equivalent. I am not asserting that it is always possible (encumbrances exist...). I am asserting the principle that our duty to society demands yielding this property up to the world at some point when we no longer find it valuable to own in any sense. I am founding my statement of duty based upon reading too many papers from the 50s-70s where really interesting systems were developed, and then redeveloped years later, when the original companies had disappeared or discontinued the initial product. I think we could be much further along if the publishing of source was a commonly done thing.
  - nirvdrum 12y ago
    Part of the purpose of my post was to paint a realistic picture of this process. I suspect much of what I ran into isn't an aberration. Creating a tarball and distributing it is a gross oversimplification of the process in many cases. And there's massive liability exposure in doing so. So, the question then becomes how much more do I owe society? Am I obligated to spend 40 hours to clean up the code? Should I pay for a personal E&O policy on the off-chance I'm infringing on IP or unwittingly using someone's patented work? Should I continue running the corporation just to protect my personal interests? And even if we managed to come to some agreement on all that, is it really the best way I could contribute to society? Would that 40 hours be better spent volunteering at a soup kitchen? Maybe spending the time programming for some non-profit that needs help? The question seems simple at face value. The reasons for open sourcing dead software sound fantastic in an idealistic society. But the reality is far more complicated than the question suggests. And I don't think it's entirely fair to expect or demand this of people.
    - pnathan 12y ago
      Those are really quite fair questions in reality: I'm arguing from principle, but I don't think your complaints are unreasonable. Reality exists, after all. :-) Let me pose a hypothetical example - Suppose your company produced the World's Shiniest Algorithm (WSA), allowing our total software energy use to drop below 10% of what it currently does. And, then, because your company is led by a scientist who can not run a business, it completely implodes. The WSA is now out to lunch. What is the moral duty relating to the WSA? Should it have been published/open sourced? On the flip side, what of the company with the World's Worst Algorithm, allowing your fine company to rank size of navel lint. This also implodes (for obvious reasons). What is the moral duty relating to the WWA? Should it have been published/open sourced? My perspective is largely informed by seeing a lot of published papers referencing really awesome software long ago that essentially went into the garbage can due to commercial reasons. I don't think that it was a net win for society that that happened.
      - nirvdrum 12y ago
        These are interesting points and my response wasn't intended to slap you down, as it were. I just see the question posed every time someone announces a shutdown here. And I don't think it's a bad question to ask, but it is quite loaded. I set out to explain why. To your example, if someone tells you exactly how something was built, but didn't give you the source for the embodiment, that seems like a fine societal contribution to me. But, I'd probably argue that if it were truly that valuable to society, society probably should have found a way to support it, too. As long as the argument is no one owes a founder anything (which I can agree with), then the founder shouldn't owe anyone anything as a matter of fairness.

by pnathan 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Just to be clear: at issue here isn't whether some piece of code scraped from an HTTP response or found without a license on Github should revert to the public domain. The specific entitlement we are discussing is whether work you produce on your own in private, without ever revealing it to the public, is so encumbered by the entitlement of strangers that you have a duty to furnish it. That's what people who cajole business owners over open-sourcing their failed projects are asserting.

pnathan 12y ago
Absolutely. To be crystal clear, I am discussing whether the technical & intellectual work produced as part of your (as commonly understood by the layperson) property and business, ought (as a duty) to be furnished by the creator/owner under some license to the broader world in some sense (whether by specific request or generalized publishing). I argue that, generally, if said piece of property has no other encumbrance, then after some event or period of time, if this property is not providing value, the creator/owner should yield the property to the broad public, as their duty to society. In particular, I am not asserting that they have a duty to make it useable or useful, or have a duty to do anything besides a tar ball or the moral equivalent. I am not asserting that it is always possible (encumbrances exist...). I am asserting the principle that our duty to society demands yielding this property up to the world at some point when we no longer find it valuable to own in any sense. I am founding my statement of duty based upon reading too many papers from the 50s-70s where really interesting systems were developed, and then redeveloped years later, when the original companies had disappeared or discontinued the initial product. I think we could be much further along if the publishing of source was a commonly done thing.
- nirvdrum 12y ago
  Part of the purpose of my post was to paint a realistic picture of this process. I suspect much of what I ran into isn't an aberration. Creating a tarball and distributing it is a gross oversimplification of the process in many cases. And there's massive liability exposure in doing so. So, the question then becomes how much more do I owe society? Am I obligated to spend 40 hours to clean up the code? Should I pay for a personal E&O policy on the off-chance I'm infringing on IP or unwittingly using someone's patented work? Should I continue running the corporation just to protect my personal interests? And even if we managed to come to some agreement on all that, is it really the best way I could contribute to society? Would that 40 hours be better spent volunteering at a soup kitchen? Maybe spending the time programming for some non-profit that needs help? The question seems simple at face value. The reasons for open sourcing dead software sound fantastic in an idealistic society. But the reality is far more complicated than the question suggests. And I don't think it's entirely fair to expect or demand this of people.
  - pnathan 12y ago
    Those are really quite fair questions in reality: I'm arguing from principle, but I don't think your complaints are unreasonable. Reality exists, after all. :-) Let me pose a hypothetical example - Suppose your company produced the World's Shiniest Algorithm (WSA), allowing our total software energy use to drop below 10% of what it currently does. And, then, because your company is led by a scientist who can not run a business, it completely implodes. The WSA is now out to lunch. What is the moral duty relating to the WSA? Should it have been published/open sourced? On the flip side, what of the company with the World's Worst Algorithm, allowing your fine company to rank size of navel lint. This also implodes (for obvious reasons). What is the moral duty relating to the WWA? Should it have been published/open sourced? My perspective is largely informed by seeing a lot of published papers referencing really awesome software long ago that essentially went into the garbage can due to commercial reasons. I don't think that it was a net win for society that that happened.
    - nirvdrum 12y ago
      These are interesting points and my response wasn't intended to slap you down, as it were. I just see the question posed every time someone announces a shutdown here. And I don't think it's a bad question to ask, but it is quite loaded. I set out to explain why. To your example, if someone tells you exactly how something was built, but didn't give you the source for the embodiment, that seems like a fine societal contribution to me. But, I'd probably argue that if it were truly that valuable to society, society probably should have found a way to support it, too. As long as the argument is no one owes a founder anything (which I can agree with), then the founder shouldn't owe anyone anything as a matter of fairness.