Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"...you can't sanely compete with the open-source mentality."

3 views
Skip to first unread message

DFS

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 10:14:54 PM1/21/05
to
Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.

He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly gives up
financial claims to their valuable intellectual property), but they sure
can:

* create [MUCH] better software
* sell [a LOT] more product
* create [a LOT] more jobs
* contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth

I think I'll stay sane.

Ralph

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 10:31:36 PM1/21/05
to
DFS wrote:

Thats right, there is not competing with OSS.

Daniel Tryba

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 10:34:42 PM1/21/05
to
DFS <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> * create [MUCH] better software
> * sell [a LOT] more product
> * create [a LOT] more jobs
> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>
> I think I'll stay sane.

So what are you afraid of?

CEO Gargantua

unread,
Jan 21, 2005, 10:52:38 PM1/21/05
to

I was thinking about it walking home.

There's nothing to stop say, a Boeing, from developing with Open Source
as a starting point, and then never releasing it except for internal
use...since they're not putting up directly for sale, they don't have to
make their last mile code, open.

Now, that would be interesting if, say, boeing used linux and open
source in a plane, modifying it, of course. So then, the plane would be
a /media/ that the software is bundled with ( presumably, an in-flight
navigation system would add value to the plane ).

So, in that instance, would Boeing be obligated to make the source code
of their end product open? even if it's not directly for sale?


--
incognito...updated almost daily
http://kentpsychedelic.blogspot.com

Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://texeme.com

Peter

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 3:02:22 AM1/22/05
to
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:52:38 GMT, CEO Gargantua <gam...@r.lamers>
wrote:

>
>I was thinking about it walking home.
>
>There's nothing to stop say, a Boeing, from developing with Open Source
>as a starting point, and then never releasing it except for internal
>use...since they're not putting up directly for sale, they don't have to
>make their last mile code, open.
>
>Now, that would be interesting if, say, boeing used linux and open
>source in a plane, modifying it, of course. So then, the plane would be
>a /media/ that the software is bundled with ( presumably, an in-flight
>navigation system would add value to the plane ).
>
>So, in that instance, would Boeing be obligated to make the source code
>of their end product open? even if it's not directly for sale?
>

If they sell an airplane containing software, they sell the software.
This is the situation with Cisco routers - they are on the receiving
end of FSF's legal action for not providing source code for their
(including subcontractors etc) modification to GPL'd code contained in
the routers.

There is a quite legitimate workaround - provide source for the parts
that modify GPL'd code (eg custom modifications to the Linux kernel)
and keep the applications layer closed source (as long as it does not
crib GPL'd code - if an organization wants to keep it closed source,
then write it from scratch or base it on other closed source code (but
linking to LGPL libraries is OK so no need to write the libraries).

Tim Smith

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 12:53:11 PM1/22/05
to
In article <41f20683...@news.paradise.net.nz>, Peter wrote:
>>There's nothing to stop say, a Boeing, from developing with Open Source
> If they sell an airplane containing software, they sell the software.
> This is the situation with Cisco routers - they are on the receiving
> end of FSF's legal action for not providing source code for their
> (including subcontractors etc) modification to GPL'd code contained in
> the routers.

However, there's an interesting case that I don't think is too common now,
but might become significant. Suppose that they buy a hardware component
from a third party, and that component contains GPL'ed software. They put
that component in their planes, and sell them, so it goes like this:

1. Third party sells component to Boeing. What they deliver to
Boeing is N packages, each containing one of the hardware components,
documentation, and a CD with the source code. Note that the third party
has satisified their GPL obligation.

2. Boeing takes the hardware components (which includes a ROM with the
GPL'ed software), and installs them in planes.

3. Boeing sells the planes to customers.

The customer now has a plane, containing a component that contains GPL'ed
software in ROM, and no one is obligated to give the customer source code.
Consider:

1. The third party that sold the components to Boeing is off the hook,
because they completely satisfied their GPL obligation by including the
source code with the components.

2. Boeing is off the hook because of the first sale doctrine, which
basically says that if you own a particular legal copy of a copyrighted
work, you can sell that copy without requiring permission of the
copyright holder. (This is why, for example, you can sell used books,
even though copyright law normally gives the right to distribute copies
of a copyrighted work exclusively to the copyright holder). Since
Boeing hasn't done anything that requires the copyright holder's
permission, they have no need to follow the GPL.

Note that if Boeing modified the software, or if they built the components
themselves and copied the software from the original, then they would need
the copyright holder's permission, and so would need to follow GPL. But as
long as they simply buy N widgets from outside and pass them on to their
customers, first sale has them covered.

As Linux and other GPL'ed software become common for embedded systems, I
think we'll see the above situation become common. Linux will become, to
many companies that sell to end users, something that comes as part of the
hardware they buy.

It will be interesting to see how the various free software people react to
this. I suspect Linus won't mind too much. I suspect RMS will be pretty
ticked off. I have no guess what ESR or Bruce Perens will think. Oh, and I
predict there will be a long and pointless Slashdot discussion. :-)

Note that there will probably still be a way to get the code in most cases.
For example, suppose you buy some gizmo from company X, and you find that X
built it around an embedded Linux system they bought from company Y. You
could go to company Y and buy one of those embedde systems directly, so that
Y would give you the source. So, as a practical matter, this won't be a big
deal. It will set off some of the purists, though. :-)

--
--Tim Smith

GreyCloud

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 1:37:16 PM1/22/05
to
> I think I'll stay studid.

I'm sure you will.

--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

DFS

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 1:50:30 PM1/22/05
to
GreyCloud wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>>
>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>
>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>> but they sure can:
>>
>> * create [MUCH] better software
>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>
>> I think I'll stay studid.
>
> I'm sure you will.

Changing my post, and misspelling your "studid" forgery? Is that what I
reduced you to?


Peter

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 2:41:22 PM1/22/05
to
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:11 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:


> 1. Third party sells component to Boeing. What they deliver to
> Boeing is N packages, each containing one of the hardware components,
> documentation, and a CD with the source code. Note that the third party
> has satisified their GPL obligation.

No, the source code has to be made available to all the world at this
point to the extent needed to satisfy the GPL obligation.

>
> 2. Boeing takes the hardware components (which includes a ROM with the
> GPL'ed software), and installs them in planes.
>
> 3. Boeing sells the planes to customers.

The Cisco scenario was pretty well the same, but they are still being
clobbered. Anyway it is very doubtful that components in a brand new
Boeing aircraft can be deemed to be 'second hand' when they have not
had previous commercial use.

The problem in the Cisco case was they and their suppliers thought the
GPL was a joke or just assumed it was unencumbered open source.

Now the obligation has been made quite clear, developers can arrange
their developments such that their trade secrets are substantially
protected while operating well within the GPL.

They need to weigh up for each section of code whether it is worth a
rewrite or whether it is worth recycling GPL code accepting that the
cost is contributing the modifications back to the open source
community.

Tim Smith

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 4:03:48 PM1/22/05
to
In article <41f2a95...@news.paradise.net.nz>, Peter wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:11 GMT, Tim Smith
><reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Third party sells component to Boeing. What they deliver to Boeing
>> is N packages, each containing one of the hardware components,
>> documentation, and a CD with the source code. Note that the third
>> party has satisified their GPL obligation.
> No, the source code has to be made available to all the world at this
> point to the extent needed to satisfy the GPL obligation.

Nope. You are probably thinking of section 3b of the GPL. It is section 3a
that applies here, however. 3b is for people who distribute binaries
*without* source. They have to make the source available to anyone who
asks. If you include the source with every binary you ship, you have
satisfied your GPL obligation.

>> 2. Boeing takes the hardware components (which includes a ROM with the
>> GPL'ed software), and installs them in planes.
>>
>> 3. Boeing sells the planes to customers.
> The Cisco scenario was pretty well the same, but they are still being
> clobbered. Anyway it is very doubtful that components in a brand new

No, the Cisco situation is quite different. Cisco is making copies
themselves, and then distributing them in ROM. That's something that
requires permission of the copyright holder, and the only thing that gives
them permission is GPL, so they need to obey GPL.

--
--Tim Smith

Jeff_Relf

unread,
Jan 22, 2005, 5:11:14 PM1/22/05
to

Open source often doesn't even compete with closed source, I say...
But here's The_City_Sleeps.MP3 by MC 900 foot Jesus.
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/The_City_Sleeps.MP3 <<

Stealin' down an alley on a cold, dark night.
I see a halo in the rain 'round a street light.

I stop and look and listen to the sound.
As the raindrops penetrate the silence all around.

Alone, I gaze into the glistening street.
The distant thunder, echoing my hearbeat.

Urging me on, to a secret goal.
Away from the light, from this lamp on a pole.

So I turn, slip away into the rain.
Drifting like a spirit through the shadows in the lane.

Clutching the tools of my trade in my hand.
An old box of matches and a gasoline can.

Darkness envelops the scene like a shroud.
A veil of emptiness hangs from the clouds.

Filling up the cracks in this desolate place.
Cradled by the night, in an icy embrace.


I move into the town, like a ghost in the rain.
A dim reflection in a dark window pane.

Blackness beckons from every side.
Creeping all around, like an incoming tide.

A broken window in an empty house.
I slip inside and begin to douse.

The whole place with the fuel that will feed the fire.
And push back the night... taking me higher.

On out of the darkness, in a deafening roar.
The match in my hand is the key to the door.

A simple turn of the wrist will suffice.
To open a passage... to paradise.

I pause. I think about the past in the gloom.
The smell of gasoline permeates the room.

Everyone has a little secret he keeps.
I light the fires, while the city sleeps.


The match makes a graceful arch to the floor.
And time stands still, as I turn for the door.

Which explodes in a fireball and throws me to the street.
I hit the ground running, with the flames at my feet.

Reaching for the night, which recoils from the fire.
The raindrops hiss like a devilish choir.

Dying in the flames with a terrible sound.
Calling all the names of the sleepers all around.

But then in the arms of the night, they lay.
Their dreams... sprout wings and fly away.

Out of their houses, in a gathering flock.
Swarming overhead as I hurry down the block.

I make my escape with the greatest of ease.
And safe in the darkness, drop to my knees.

In a lightless window, my hand on the latch.
I reach in my pocket... and pull out a match... >>

Rick

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 12:42:41 AM1/23/05
to
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:11:14 +0000, Jeff_Relf wrote:

>
> Open source often doesn't even compete with closed source, I say...
> But here's The_City_Sleeps.MP3 by MC 900 foot Jesus.
> http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/The_City_Sleeps.MP3 <<
>

Why are you such a jerk?

--
Rick

Jeff_Relf

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 8:56:29 AM1/23/05
to

Hi Rick, Re: My claim that open source doesn't compete with closed source,
You told me: << Why are you such a jerk ? >>

Please stay away from ad hominem attacks Rick,
and stick to the subject at hand.

Rick

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 1:30:43 PM1/23/05
to

Please try to stick at least --some--- truthful statements.

For the terminally self-centered (that's you Relf), the jerk question
relates to why you post so much drivel unrelated to Linux.

So, why are you such a jerk?

--
Rick

GreyCloud

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 2:13:57 PM1/23/05
to

Guffaw! You were already there, wintroll. Down at the
bottom of the well you are.
Hark!!! DO I hear Sweaty Ballmer calling out for you???

ray

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 5:40:22 PM1/23/05
to

God, I'm glad that there are a lot of us who are not sane by your
definition. I came to the realization a LONG time ago that there are
indeed many more important things than money. BTW I just spent about 40-50
hours over two weeks VOLUNTEERING at the local library - installing linux,
do a few hardware upgrades, etc. I am retired, and now, totally free.

DFS

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 5:55:23 PM1/23/05
to
ray wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:14:54 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>
>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>> but they sure can:
>>
>> * create [MUCH] better software
>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>
>> I think I'll stay sane.
>
> God, I'm glad that there are a lot of us who are not sane by your
> definition. I came to the realization a LONG time ago that there are
> indeed many more important things than money.

There are indeed. And having money only increases your ability to enjoy
those things.


> BTW I just spent about
> 40-50 hours over two weeks VOLUNTEERING at the local library -
> installing linux, do a few hardware upgrades, etc. I am retired, and
> now, totally free.

You say you're "totally free" only because you have enough money to enjoy
your retirement. But never mind that - there are many things more important
than money.

Why don't you write some software and, instead of selling it for $1,000,000,
release it to the nutcase OSS world under the GPL? When you do that, I'll
agree you're not an OSS hypocrite like 99% of the cola bozos.

ray

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 10:40:14 PM1/23/05
to

Reasons why I don't write some software and give it away:

1) don't know what particular software I'd write - my main background is
in scientific software, and there really isn't that much call for it.

2) I really don't have the time. I've been volunteering at the local
library, I'll shortly start to work on a web site for the local Habitat
for Humanity chapter (volunteer), during February I'll teach an intro
class on Linux for Community Education, I'm scheduled to do a couple of
sessions at the College of Technology at the local University on Linux,
and I have three different projects under way with our church - besides
which, I'm working on finishing up our unfinished basement.

BTW - I have done some software which I gave away - not a huge project,
but I developed box office software (to fill in and print tickets and
seating charts) for a non-profit community theatre. Unfortunately, it is
not easy to generalize something like that since every theatre has a
different seating plan, however I have offered to give the source code to
anyone wishing to adapt it for a non-profit theatre group.

DFS

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 12:20:53 AM1/24/05
to
ray wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:55:23 -0500, DFS wrote:

>> Why don't you write some software and, instead of selling it for
>> $1,000,000, release it to the nutcase OSS world under the GPL? When
>> you do that, I'll agree you're not an OSS hypocrite like 99% of the
>> cola bozos.
>
> Reasons why I don't write some software and give it away:
>
> 1) don't know what particular software I'd write - my main background
> is in scientific software, and there really isn't that much call for
> it.

It's just a thought exercise really: assume you've written a program and a
closed source company is offering $1,000,000 for the source code. Or, you
can release the source under the GPL. Whatcha gonna do?

The vast majority of Linux hypocrites would take the money and run, then try
to justify it in some dishonest way (as they tried to do when I posed a
similar question to cola a few months ago). They want to be paid to write
software, but they believe software should be free - as in cost and as in
speech.

How do they live with themselves?

> 2) I really don't have the time. I've been volunteering at the local
> library, I'll shortly start to work on a web site for the local
> Habitat for Humanity chapter (volunteer), during February I'll teach
> an intro class on Linux for Community Education, I'm scheduled to do
> a couple of sessions at the College of Technology at the local
> University on Linux, and I have three different projects under way
> with our church - besides which, I'm working on finishing up our
> unfinished basement.

A busy man, I see.


> BTW - I have done some software which I gave away - not a huge
> project, but I developed box office software (to fill in and print
> tickets and seating charts) for a non-profit community theatre.
> Unfortunately, it is not easy to generalize something like that since
> every theatre has a different seating plan,

Seating would generally be aisle/row/seat, right? But for a larger arena
you could have sections and levels and other classifications. So that kind
of generalized structure is done in the design stage of your project,
usually via database entity relationship diagrams that result in a system
which lets the user assign the seating structure when they setup the
software. That's the data repository; the seating chart printing is another
ballgame entirely. There you might also create a set of 5 or 8 templates
that cover a variety of arena layouts. I agree - it's not easy.

I recently built a generalized survey system for a client. They're a large
franchise company, and the system will let them create multiple levels of
rollup (such as office to business unit to division), different answer
scales, order the sections and items any way they want, assign child items
to parent questions, etc. They love it. They're holding a 2-hour training
session for 70 users next week.

> however I have offered to
> give the source code to anyone wishing to adapt it for a non-profit
> theatre group.

You should contact the French developer of this Linux program called Gambas.
He plays flute and works in the theater (instead of on his program, and
that's why it's half-baked, like so much Linux stuff).

I've also given away much source code - after the client pays my invoices,
of course.

Ray Ingles

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 9:32:23 AM1/24/05
to
In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>
> open-sourcers (who by definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone
> who willingly gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual
> property

"...as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we
should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of
ours; and this we should do freely and generously." - Benjamin Franklin

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe,
for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we
breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or
exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject
of property." - Thomas Jefferson

Two mentally-challenged individuals indeed.

--
Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by
making the other guy die for *his* country." - General Patton

ray

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 11:25:24 AM1/24/05
to
My next project is likely to be 'package' inclusion in the free version of
Comal. I'd like to do an X graphics package for the Linux version - I did
some significant work on the Commodore 128 CP/M version quite a number of
years ago.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 10:57:21 PM1/24/05
to
begin In <41f2a95...@news.paradise.net.nz>, on 01/22/2005

at 07:41 PM, pet...@parazzdise.net.nz (Peter) said:

>No, the source code has to be made available to all the world at this
>point to the extent needed to satisfy the GPL obligation.

Wrong. The obligations are to propogate the GPL and to offer the
source code when offering the object code. There is no obligation to
offer the object code to the world, and hence no obligation to offer
the source code.

The practical effect is similar, however, because the parties to whom
they provided the object code are free to provide the object code to
others, and to make the source code available to them.



>> 2. Boeing takes the hardware components (which includes a ROM with the
>> GPL'ed software), and installs them in planes.
>>
>> 3. Boeing sells the planes to customers.
>The Cisco scenario was pretty well the same,

That depends. Did Boeing offer the source code to its customers? If
not, then they would seem to be in violation.

>The problem in the Cisco case was they and their suppliers thought
>the GPL was a joke

Then they deserved to be clobber hard.

>or just assumed it was unencumbered open source.

Then they deserve to be clobbered for negligence; they should have
read the license prior to copying the code. Or do you mean that a
supplier lied to them? Then they should hold the supplier's feet to
the fire.

>Now the obligation has been made quite clear,

The obligation was already clear. What wasn't clear was wether they
could get away with theft.

>developers can arrange their developments such that their trade
>secrets are substantially protected while operating well within the
>GPL.

They could do that before; they just didn't bother. My heart bleeds
for them.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

Edwards

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 7:11:30 PM1/25/05
to
In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:

A truly sane, or at least rational, individual would be tempted to ask
why, to pick an example at random, Donald Knuth doesn't charge for
TeX. Other obvious examples like Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds come
immediately to mind. Whatever nonsense usenet performance artists
might care to spout about their personalities, it's a matter of record
that the above-named individuals aren't sufficiently
"mentally-challenged" to prevent themselves from being gainfully
employed (or quoted in journals like BusinessWeek, for that matter).

I'll be amused to see if any OSS-bashers actually step up and
explicitly question the competence (mental or professional) of the
author of TAOCP. ;)

--
Darrin

Edwards

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 7:17:59 PM1/25/05
to
In article <slrncva284....@dmc22317.local>, Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>
>> open-sourcers (who by definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone
>> who willingly gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual
>> property
>
> "...as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we
> should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of
> ours; and this we should do freely and generously." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe,
> for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
> condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
> nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
> lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we
> breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or
> exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject
> of property." - Thomas Jefferson
>
> Two mentally-challenged individuals indeed.

For that matter, you could add to that list anyone who's contributed
significantly to peer-reviewed scientific research; the production and
distribution models (of peer-reviewed science and OSS) are virtually
identical.

Hmm, Einstein, Curie, Feynman, Chandrasekhar, Dirac,
Schroedinger... sure wish I could be as "mentally-challenged" as some
of those folks.... ;)

--
Darrin

DFS

unread,
Jan 25, 2005, 9:07:11 PM1/25/05
to
Edwards wrote:
> In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>
>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>> but they sure can:
>>
>> * create [MUCH] better software
>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>
>> I think I'll stay sane.
>
> A truly sane, or at least rational, individual would be tempted to ask
> why, to pick an example at random, Donald Knuth doesn't charge for
> TeX.

You'll have to ask him. On the other hand, a truly OSS, or irrational,
nutcase would ask why he charges for all volumes of TAOCP?

> Other obvious examples like Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds come
> immediately to mind. Whatever nonsense usenet performance artists
> might care to spout about their personalities, it's a matter of record
> that the above-named individuals aren't sufficiently
> "mentally-challenged" to prevent themselves from being gainfully
> employed (or quoted in journals like BusinessWeek, for that matter).

Of course not. They believe software should be free (of charge and of
proprietary encumbrances), but they also believe they should be paid to
develop it or support it. How does that work again?

> I'll be amused to see if any OSS-bashers actually step up and
> explicitly question the competence (mental or professional) of the
> author of TAOCP. ;)

The donation of OSS code seems a roundabout exercise in vanity. If I can't
sell my code, I'll give it away, but also make sure my name is plastered all
over it and the website that promotes it.

tab

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 1:13:31 AM1/26/05
to
Open Office = Funded (SUN)
Linux = Funded (IBM)

The good stuff is funded,.
The garbage is not, and works only on a blue moon.

They give it away for free, much like a razor company
gives away the razor so you spend a life time buying blades.

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 5:25:53 AM1/26/05
to
Edwards <edw...@nouce.trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:

> For that matter, you could add to that list anyone who's contributed
> significantly to peer-reviewed scientific research; the production and
> distribution models (of peer-reviewed science and OSS) are virtually
> identical.

They aren't very similar at all. They are perhaps more similar today
(in the era of widely available self-publishing) than in the early
twentieth century but they've never been virtually identical.

To publish in a reputable journal, one has to have anonymous reviewers
agree that his work is worthwhile. Sometimes the reviewers know the
name of the author, sometimes not (depending on the field). The
reviewers must agree that the work is significant and accurate.

To create an OSS project requires nothing of the sort. To contribute
to an existing OSS project requires only that the guy in charge of the
project agrees to accept the contribution on whatever grounds he
chooses (in principle, a journal could choose grounds beside
peer-review but in practice this would severely limit their impact).

A contribution to OSS is available to everyone's use and everyone can
distribute it (with source code for GPL and with possibly other
exceptions for other OSS licenses). A contribution so a journal is
*not* available to everyone to freely distribute. It is often
available at a library that has chosen to pay the publisher for a
subscription. That doesn't give one the right to re-distribute.

The differences between OSS and academic journals are so obvious and
deep that I don't see any utility in your metaphor. Certainly, the
two processes are *not* "virtually identical" in either production or
distribution.

--
"Eventually the truth will come out, and you know what I'll do then?
Probably go to the beach. I'll also hang out in some bars. Yup, I'll
definitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach."
-- JSH on the rewards of winning a mathematical revolution

Rick

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 6:10:07 AM1/26/05
to
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:13:31 -0800, tab wrote:

> Open Office = Funded (SUN)
> Linux = Funded (IBM)
>
> The good stuff is funded,.
> The garbage is not, and works only on a blue moon.

You may now tell us what 'only works in a blue moon'.

>
> They give it away for free, much like a razor company
> gives away the razor so you spend a life time buying blades.

Cretin.

--
Rick

Liam Slider

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 12:05:02 PM1/26/05
to
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:

>
> Of course not. They believe software should be free (of charge and of
> proprietary encumbrances), but they also believe they should be paid to
> develop it or support it. How does that work again?


Considering that people *do* get paid to do this very thing....it clearly
works quite well.

Liam Slider

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 12:09:37 PM1/26/05
to
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:20:53 -0500, DFS wrote:

> It's just a thought exercise really: assume you've written a program and a
> closed source company is offering $1,000,000 for the source code. Or, you
> can release the source under the GPL. Whatcha gonna do?


Like *that* happens to 99.9% of independant developers....

Message has been deleted

Edwards

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 5:06:31 PM1/26/05
to
In article <VZCJd.15713$AU4....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
> Edwards wrote:
>> In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>>
>>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>>> but they sure can:
>>>
>>> * create [MUCH] better software
>>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>>
>>> I think I'll stay sane.
>>
>> A truly sane, or at least rational, individual would be tempted to ask
>> why, to pick an example at random, Donald Knuth doesn't charge for
>> TeX.
>
> You'll have to ask him.

You're the one calling him "mentally-challenged", _you_ ask him.

> On the other hand, a truly OSS, or irrational,
> nutcase would ask why he charges for all volumes of TAOCP?

Because he can. His book, he cahrges what he chooses to for it; his
code, he charges what he chooses for it. You didn't help him write
either, yet seem to have a loud and persistent beef with at least the
latter choice... what was that about staying sane again?

>> Other obvious examples like Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds come
>> immediately to mind. Whatever nonsense usenet performance artists
>> might care to spout about their personalities, it's a matter of record
>> that the above-named individuals aren't sufficiently
>> "mentally-challenged" to prevent themselves from being gainfully
>> employed (or quoted in journals like BusinessWeek, for that matter).
>
> Of course not. They believe software should be free (of charge and of
> proprietary encumbrances), but they also believe they should be paid to
> develop it or support it. How does that work again?

Um, reread your last sentence; that _is_ how it works. Since people
like Linus Torvals do in practice get hired by places like Transmeta
-- based on their proven track record of writing code, but with the
understanding that at least some of the code they'll end up writing
will best serve the author, the company, and the surrounding community
as OSS -- then the belief would appear to be well-founded. Anyone at
this point who actually suspected you of being sane would ask, again,
what the heck your beef is with an employer-employee agreement in
which you have no standing whatsoever. Go ahead, start shouting
"Commies!" or something; in regard to a transaction which is
fundamentally rooted in basic tenets of capitalism (copyright law,
contract law etc.), that'll really convince folks you're "staying
sane".

OSS works virtually identically to the way peer-reviewed scientific
research works (i.e., academia as opposed to industry). A university
_doesn't_ hire a physicist to pay him piecemeal for the papers he
writes, and to keep those papers in a locked room in the library
basement. They get hired based on their track record of generating
new contributions to a particular body of knowledge, and with the hope
that such contributions will continue after they're hired -- with the
_explicit_ understanding of both parties that the contributions
themselves will be publicly disseminated, available to anyone with a
library card.

You _might_ try to argue that a scientist will make more money working
in industry, putting their efforts into a body of work protected by
trade secrets and patents. Even if that were true on average (which I
highly doubt, there are plenty of highly paid professors and low paid
industry lab grunts out there), it would not change the fact that
_both_ modes of research coexist, and have coexisted for quite some
time, both _work_, and both allow their practitioners to make
comfortable livings for themselves while satisfying their employers'
requirements. If you can't see the obvious parallels with OSS and
CSS, more than your sanity will be brought into question.

>> I'll be amused to see if any OSS-bashers actually step up and
>> explicitly question the competence (mental or professional) of the
>> author of TAOCP. ;)
>
> The donation of OSS code seems a roundabout exercise in vanity. If
> I can't sell my code, I'll give it away, but also make sure my name
> is plastered all over it and the website that promotes it.

Nice backpedal -- not "mentally-challenged" any more, just "vain", eh?
Still a bloody silly point. Again, look at the parallels in the
sciences -- there's a reason they're called "Maxwell's Equations",
"Feynman diagrams" etc. etc. Credit where credit is due is a
fundamental part of capitalism after all. (You're not a _commie_, are
you? ;))

--
Darrin

DFS

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 6:21:22 PM1/26/05
to


The point is it definitely could happen (many independents write saleable
code). And the point also is, cola hypocrites would sell out to MS or
another closed source firm in a heartbeat, then run back to cola and, as
they're counting their money with one hand, the other is sending a post
praising free! as in beer software. cola bozos are two-faced.

DFS

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 6:22:48 PM1/26/05
to

Yes, hypocrisy works well among the cola nuts and Linux/OSS crowd.

DFS

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 7:14:01 PM1/26/05
to
Edwards wrote:
> In article <VZCJd.15713$AU4....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Edwards wrote:
>>> In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>>>
>>>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>>>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>>>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>>>> but they sure can:
>>>>
>>>> * create [MUCH] better software
>>>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>>>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>>>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll stay sane.
>>>
>>> A truly sane, or at least rational, individual would be tempted to
>>> ask why, to pick an example at random, Donald Knuth doesn't charge
>>> for TeX.
>>
>> You'll have to ask him.
>
> You're the one calling him "mentally-challenged", _you_ ask him.

You brought him up - you ask him.

>> On the other hand, a truly OSS, or irrational,
>> nutcase would ask why he charges for all volumes of TAOCP?
>
> Because he can. His book, he cahrges what he chooses to for it; his
> code, he charges what he chooses for it. You didn't help him write
> either, yet seem to have a loud and persistent beef with at least the
> latter choice... what was that about staying sane again?

True, it's not my business what he charges or doesn't charge for. He can
give away as much of his valuable intellectual property as he wants, for as
long as he wants. It's his [insane] choice.

>>> Other obvious examples like Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds come
>>> immediately to mind. Whatever nonsense usenet performance artists
>>> might care to spout about their personalities, it's a matter of
>>> record that the above-named individuals aren't sufficiently
>>> "mentally-challenged" to prevent themselves from being gainfully
>>> employed (or quoted in journals like BusinessWeek, for that matter).
>>
>> Of course not. They believe software should be free (of charge and
>> of proprietary encumbrances), but they also believe they should be
>> paid to develop it or support it. How does that work again?
>
> Um, reread your last sentence; that _is_ how it works.

You reread it - this time looking for the blunt irony and dripping sarcasm.

> Since people
> like Linus Torvals do in practice get hired by places like Transmeta
> -- based on their proven track record of writing code, but with the
> understanding that at least some of the code they'll end up writing
> will best serve the author, the company, and the surrounding community
> as OSS -- then the belief would appear to be well-founded. Anyone at
> this point who actually suspected you of being sane would ask, again,
> what the heck your beef is with an employer-employee agreement in
> which you have no standing whatsoever.

I don't have a beef with an employer-employee agreement. I have a beef with
Linux hypocrites demanding to be paid to work on software, but also
demanding it be free to the world, and to them. That kind of arrangement
can exist only if the organization funds OSS development by selling
proprietary products.

And I have a beef with Linus Torvalds making the claim he did. It's
ridiculous, really. He's been proven wrong for a dozen years, and he'll be
proven wrong for the next dozen years.

> Go ahead, start shouting
> "Commies!" or something; in regard to a transaction which is
> fundamentally rooted in basic tenets of capitalism (copyright law,
> contract law etc.), that'll really convince folks you're "staying
> sane".

What are you blabbering about? What transaction?

A transaction or anything else "fundamentally rooted in basic tenets of
capitalism" doesn't necessarily make it right.


> OSS works virtually identically to the way peer-reviewed scientific
> research works (i.e., academia as opposed to industry). A university
> _doesn't_ hire a physicist to pay him piecemeal for the papers he
> writes, and to keep those papers in a locked room in the library
> basement. They get hired based on their track record of generating
> new contributions to a particular body of knowledge, and with the hope
> that such contributions will continue after they're hired -- with the
> _explicit_ understanding of both parties that the contributions
> themselves will be publicly disseminated, available to anyone with a
> library card.

> You _might_ try to argue that a scientist will make more money working
> in industry, putting their efforts into a body of work protected by
> trade secrets and patents. Even if that were true on average (which I
> highly doubt, there are plenty of highly paid professors and low paid
> industry lab grunts out there), it would not change the fact that
> _both_ modes of research coexist, and have coexisted for quite some
> time, both _work_, and both allow their practitioners to make
> comfortable livings for themselves while satisfying their employers'
> requirements. If you can't see the obvious parallels with OSS and
> CSS, more than your sanity will be brought into question.

Even though your insane mind went off on a long tangent, I'm glad you
brought this OSS/academia/CSS comparison up. It's clear the closed source
world (public and private organizations generating patented products) has
contributed much more to the advancement of the world than the OSS,
everything should be free, "communist" crowd could ever hope to.

>>> I'll be amused to see if any OSS-bashers actually step up and
>>> explicitly question the competence (mental or professional) of the
>>> author of TAOCP. ;)
>>
>> The donation of OSS code seems a roundabout exercise in vanity. If
>> I can't sell my code, I'll give it away, but also make sure my name
>> is plastered all over it and the website that promotes it.
>
> Nice backpedal -- not "mentally-challenged" any more, just "vain", eh?

Not a backpedal. An extension. Insane AND vain.


> Still a bloody silly point. Again, look at the parallels in the
> sciences -- there's a reason they're called "Maxwell's Equations",
> "Feynman diagrams" etc. etc. Credit where credit is due is a
> fundamental part of capitalism after all. (You're not a _commie_, are
> you? ;))

Credit where credit is due - for something for which recognition is
deserved. But "DFS' Equations" wouldn't be worth recognizing, nor would
"Edward's Equations". Now that won't stop me or you from vainly labeling
our output, but it doesn't change the worth of the output. I see parallels
in the mentally-challenged OSS world: the overwhelming majority of OSS code
isn't nearly good enough to sell, so they submit it to Debian and they
include it alongside thousands of other amateurish packages. If you deny
this, you are fooling yourself.

Rick

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 7:29:44 PM1/26/05
to

You may now -try- to show how it is hypocritical to get paid for writing
OSS.

--
Rick

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 3:38:22 AM1/27/05
to
Edwards <edw...@nouce.trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:

> OSS works virtually identically to the way peer-reviewed scientific
> research works (i.e., academia as opposed to industry). A university
> _doesn't_ hire a physicist to pay him piecemeal for the papers he
> writes, and to keep those papers in a locked room in the library
> basement. They get hired based on their track record of generating
> new contributions to a particular body of knowledge, and with the hope
> that such contributions will continue after they're hired -- with the
> _explicit_ understanding of both parties that the contributions
> themselves will be publicly disseminated, available to anyone with a
> library card.

A typical academic journal is utterly unlike open source. It is an
expensive purchase. The fact that one can copy articles from a
journal has not a damn thing to do with the generosity of the journal
or its contributors, but because DMCA-like restrictions on fair use
haven't had much impact on paper publications. Very often, a journal
restricts the author's ability to publish his own article freely on
his website.

Publications may be "publicly disseminated" but they are not freely
disseminated.

--
"You lack the ability to reason, but instead get an idea in your head
and hold on to it against all evidence. I don't find you credible,
and reject your claims, as coming from a flawed source."
-- James S Harris shoots for Projection Post of the Year (2004)

WS

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 7:23:48 AM1/27/05
to
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Edwards <edw...@nouce.trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
>
>>OSS works virtually identically to the way peer-reviewed scientific
>>research works (i.e., academia as opposed to industry). A university
>>_doesn't_ hire a physicist to pay him piecemeal for the papers he
>>writes, and to keep those papers in a locked room in the library
>>basement. They get hired based on their track record of generating
>>new contributions to a particular body of knowledge, and with the hope
>>that such contributions will continue after they're hired -- with the
>>_explicit_ understanding of both parties that the contributions
>>themselves will be publicly disseminated, available to anyone with a
>>library card.
>
>
> A typical academic journal is utterly unlike open source. It is an
> expensive purchase. The fact that one can copy articles from a
> journal has not a damn thing to do with the generosity of the journal
> or its contributors, but because DMCA-like restrictions on fair use
> haven't had much impact on paper publications. Very often, a journal
> restricts the author's ability to publish his own article freely on
> his website.
>
> Publications may be "publicly disseminated" but they are not freely
> disseminated.
>

Well, some people are working actively to change that too.

http://www.plos.org/

Regards,
WS

--
change to leews to mail


Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 8:13:42 AM1/27/05
to
WS <see...@pacific.net.sg> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> A typical academic journal is utterly unlike open source. It is an
>> expensive purchase. The fact that one can copy articles from a
>> journal has not a damn thing to do with the generosity of the journal
>> or its contributors, but because DMCA-like restrictions on fair use
>> haven't had much impact on paper publications. Very often, a journal
>> restricts the author's ability to publish his own article freely on
>> his website.
>>
>> Publications may be "publicly disseminated" but they are not freely
>> disseminated.
>>
>
> Well, some people are working actively to change that too.
>
> http://www.plos.org/

Yes, indeed. And I appreciate the work there and elsewhere. But as
far as I can tell, such work is still in its infancy (at least in my
field) and it would be a bit unwise for a young researcher to try to
publish only in freely available journals.

--
"At the Microsoft-sponsored cocktail reception in the Galaxy Ballroom
that evening, Robert Dees urges us 'to network on behalf of the people
of Iraq,'"
-- Naomi Klein reports on Microsoft's efforts to further democracy.

Kier

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 10:07:39 AM1/27/05
to
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:22:48 -0500, DFS wrote:

Liar.

--
Kier

Kier

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 10:07:21 AM1/27/05
to

You're a liar. You can't prove this bollocks one little bit, can you? And
you dare to call yourself honest. Hypocrite liar.

--
Kier

Edwards

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 8:03:35 PM1/27/05
to
In article <XpWJd.17037$yT6....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
> Edwards wrote:
>> In article <VZCJd.15713$AU4....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> Edwards wrote:
>>>> In article <SAjId.1550$J97...@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>>> Says Linus Torvalds, in the new BusinessWeek article.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's right; sane people can't compete against open-sourcers (who by
>>>>> definition are mentally-challenged - as is anyone who willingly
>>>>> gives up financial claims to their valuable intellectual property),
>>>>> but they sure can:
>>>>>
>>>>> * create [MUCH] better software
>>>>> * sell [a LOT] more product
>>>>> * create [a LOT] more jobs
>>>>> * contribute [a LOT] more to economic growth
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll stay sane.
>>>>
>>>> A truly sane, or at least rational, individual would be tempted to
>>>> ask why, to pick an example at random, Donald Knuth doesn't charge
>>>> for TeX.
>>>
>>> You'll have to ask him.
>>
>> You're the one calling him "mentally-challenged", _you_ ask him.
>
> You brought him up - you ask him.

You brought up the absurd claim that all "open-sourcers" (including,
e.g., DK) are "mentally-challenged". There's certainly nothing _I_
need to ask him.

> True, it's not my business what he charges or doesn't charge for.
> He can give away as much of his valuable intellectual property as he
> wants, for as long as he wants. It's his [insane] choice.

Compared to the choice of throwing away his academic career to start
up some dinky company trying to sell TeX as CSS, it's a quite rational
choice.

>>>> Other obvious examples like Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds come
>>>> immediately to mind. Whatever nonsense usenet performance artists
>>>> might care to spout about their personalities, it's a matter of
>>>> record that the above-named individuals aren't sufficiently
>>>> "mentally-challenged" to prevent themselves from being gainfully
>>>> employed (or quoted in journals like BusinessWeek, for that matter).
>>>
>>> Of course not. They believe software should be free (of charge and
>>> of proprietary encumbrances), but they also believe they should be
>>> paid to develop it or support it. How does that work again?
>>
>> Um, reread your last sentence; that _is_ how it works.
>
> You reread it - this time looking for the blunt irony and dripping sarcasm.

Why don't you try reading it _without_ the blunt irony and dripping
sarcasm: "It is possible for an organization to distribute software
which is free of charge and proprietary encumbrances [other than
reasonable license requirements based on copyright law], while still
being able to pay the developers of said software or provide support
for said software."

Since this has _empirically_ been shown to be true for many software
projects, OSS developers, and organizations, you need a stronger
counterargument than just "I don't understand how that works."

>> Since people like Linus Torvals do in practice get hired by places
>> like Transmeta -- based on their proven track record of writing
>> code, but with the understanding that at least some of the code
>> they'll end up writing will best serve the author, the company, and
>> the surrounding community as OSS -- then the belief would appear to
>> be well-founded. Anyone at this point who actually suspected you
>> of being sane would ask, again, what the heck your beef is with an
>> employer-employee agreement in which you have no standing

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>> whatsoever.
>
> I don't have a beef with an employer-employee agreement. I have a
> beef with Linux hypocrites demanding to be paid to work on software,
> but also demanding it be free to the world, and to them.

OSS programmers (not all of them of course, but that's hardly the
point here) _do_ get paid to work on software which is made "free to
the world". You have no standing to dispute such a contractual
relationship between an OSS programmer and their employer.

You think all such employers, without exception, are being cheated?
Good luck proving that. (Yeah right, Stanford University just hasn't
been able to get back in the black since Knuth started giving away
TeX.)

You think all such OSS programmers, without exception, could get
better-paying jobs producing CSS? Even better luck proving that.

> That kind of arrangement can exist only if the organization funds
> OSS development by selling proprietary products.

I don't see any evidence for that claim, but much more importantly,
note that the "proprietary products" involved _don't_ have to be
software.

> And I have a beef with Linus Torvalds making the claim he did. It's
> ridiculous, really. He's been proven wrong for a dozen years, and
> he'll be proven wrong for the next dozen years.
>
>> Go ahead, start shouting
>> "Commies!" or something; in regard to a transaction which is
>> fundamentally rooted in basic tenets of capitalism (copyright law,
>> contract law etc.), that'll really convince folks you're "staying
>> sane".
>
> What are you blabbering about? What transaction?

The "employer-employee [contractual] agreement".

> A transaction or anything else "fundamentally rooted in basic tenets of
> capitalism" doesn't necessarily make it right.

No, it just makes those calling it "communist" look, well,
"mentally-challenged".

As for "right vs. wrong", I'll be even more amused to see your
arguments on this one. What on earth could possibly be wrong with a
company telling a potential employee "We'd like to hire you to write
some code, since we were impressed with this project of yours;" the
potential employee asking "Can I redistribute that software [assuming
it's not directly related to the revenue stream of the employer] or
software tools I create [unrelated to their core business] to help me
write the code you want?" and the employer agreeing?

<rolls eyes> Gee, the "Commies!" schtick again, and it was only dealt
with it forty lines up. And if you really got nothing more out of the
above than the absurd idea that all research scientists at
universities do is "generate patented products", then the "tangent"
really was a little too long for you; my apologies.

Here's a shorter version for you to take a stab at: you _don't_ need
to pay patent royalties to read a peer-reviewed scientific journal,
all you need is a library card.

>>>> I'll be amused to see if any OSS-bashers actually step up and
>>>> explicitly question the competence (mental or professional) of the
>>>> author of TAOCP. ;)
>>>
>>> The donation of OSS code seems a roundabout exercise in vanity. If
>>> I can't sell my code, I'll give it away, but also make sure my name
>>> is plastered all over it and the website that promotes it.
>>
>> Nice backpedal -- not "mentally-challenged" any more, just "vain", eh?
>
> Not a backpedal. An extension. Insane AND vain.
>
>
>> Still a bloody silly point. Again, look at the parallels in the
>> sciences -- there's a reason they're called "Maxwell's Equations",
>> "Feynman diagrams" etc. etc. Credit where credit is due is a
>> fundamental part of capitalism after all. (You're not a _commie_, are
>> you? ;))
>
> Credit where credit is due - for something for which recognition is
> deserved. But "DFS' Equations" wouldn't be worth recognizing, nor would
> "Edward's Equations". Now that won't stop me or you from vainly labeling
> our output, but it doesn't change the worth of the output.

You can't call standard operating procedure "vanity". My name appears
in the author list of all the peer-reviewed articles I've written;
that's not vanity, that's SOP. It's not vanity for a coder to put his
name on the copyright notice of that code; again, it's standard
procedure. Perhaps you'd prefer a copyright system where a code
number is given instead of the author name, and only the Library of
Congress (for US copyright) or some international version thereof
holds the actual code number/author hash. Good luck getting that
implemented -- I bet a lot of (paper) book authors would be thrilled
about it too. (Never mind how "sane" and "non-communist" it sounds.)

> I see parallels in the mentally-challenged OSS world: the
> overwhelming majority of OSS code isn't nearly good enough to sell,
> so they submit it to Debian and they include it alongside thousands
> of other amateurish packages. If you deny this, you are fooling
> yourself.

So it's not per se the presence of the author's name on the work
that's "vanity", only exaggerated claims about its quality that would
be. Good of you to point that out.

--
Darrin

Edwards

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 9:00:28 PM1/27/05
to
In article <87d5vrm...@phiwumbda.org>, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Edwards <edw...@nouce.trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
>> OSS works virtually identically to the way peer-reviewed scientific
>> research works (i.e., academia as opposed to industry). A university
>> _doesn't_ hire a physicist to pay him piecemeal for the papers he
>> writes, and to keep those papers in a locked room in the library
>> basement. They get hired based on their track record of generating
>> new contributions to a particular body of knowledge, and with the hope
>> that such contributions will continue after they're hired -- with the
>> _explicit_ understanding of both parties that the contributions
>> themselves will be publicly disseminated, available to anyone with a
>> library card.
>
> A typical academic journal is utterly unlike open source. It is an
> expensive purchase.

Sure, an individual subscription can be expensive, especially if the
individual doesn't have, e.g., a membership in the professional
organization sposoring the journal. (Heck, it's pricey even with such
memberships. ;)) On the other hand, even if the individual only has
access to a community library, they're very likely to be able to
e.g. get a copy through interlibrary loan.

> The fact that one can copy articles from a journal has not a damn
> thing to do with the generosity of the journal or its contributors,
> but because DMCA-like restrictions on fair use haven't had much
> impact on paper publications.

I sincerely hope that isn't expected to change anytime soon. :( I was
under the impression that libraries (granted, mostly university
libraries, but still) made up a significant fraction of such journals'
subsriber lists. I mean fair use seems (to me at least) too big a
part of "the way things work" in academia for even the most
prestigious journals to want to kill it.

> Very often, a journal restricts the author's ability to publish his
> own article freely on his website.

True, but then the journal tends to hold the actual copyright to the
article (a serious impediment to any analogy between peer-reviewed
science and OSS, I agree). On the other hand, they don't tend to
place significant restrictions on the ability of other authors to cite
that article, which is what I mostly had in mind as being analogous to
the process of an OSS author incorporating other OSS works into their
own (e.g., the GPL I believe requires them to prominently indicate
such sections of code and include the copyright notices from the
source of that code).

> Publications may be "publicly disseminated" but they are not freely
> disseminated.

It's often argued here that OSS isn't really free in that sense either
-- you need to pay for internet access to download stuff, or pay for a
CD + shipping & handling, etc. I wasn't trying to claim that either
OSS or peer-reviewed research was "free in price"; just that, as the
barriers to getting "something" (the "IP" if you will) out of
peer-review-reported work are vastly lower than those for
patent-protected or trade-secret work, so the barriers to getting
"something" out of a piece of OSS code are vastly lower than those for
CSS.

--
Darrin

DFS

unread,
Jan 28, 2005, 2:02:06 AM1/28/05
to
Edwards wrote:
> In article <XpWJd.17037$yT6....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:

>> You brought him up - you ask him.
>
> You brought up the absurd claim that all "open-sourcers" (including,
> e.g., DK) are "mentally-challenged". There's certainly nothing _I_
> need to ask him.

You need to ask him why he would give away TeX. According to many cola
bozos, Tex (or LaTex) is much better than MS Word. Microsoft has made
millions selling Word.

>> True, it's not my business what he charges or doesn't charge for.
>> He can give away as much of his valuable intellectual property as he
>> wants, for as long as he wants. It's his [insane] choice.
>
> Compared to the choice of throwing away his academic career to start
> up some dinky company trying to sell TeX as CSS, it's a quite rational
> choice.

In your risk-averse mind. He might have gone on to make millions, as Mike
Stonebraker is with his database work.

>> You reread it - this time looking for the blunt irony and dripping
>> sarcasm.
>
> Why don't you try reading it _without_ the blunt irony and dripping
> sarcasm: "It is possible for an organization to distribute software
> which is free of charge and proprietary encumbrances [other than
> reasonable license requirements based on copyright law], while still
> being able to pay the developers of said software or provide support
> for said software."
>
> Since this has _empirically_ been shown to be true for many software
> projects, OSS developers, and organizations, you need a stronger
> counterargument than just "I don't understand how that works."

Of course it's true that some companies pay open-source developers. I never
disputed that, and it wasn't an argument. It [the last sentence "How does
that work again?"] was meant as sarcasm, to show my incredulity at the
hypocrisy of some open-source developers. The ONLY way an organization can
fund open-source development is through the sale of proprietary products or
services.

>> I don't have a beef with an employer-employee agreement. I have a
>> beef with Linux hypocrites demanding to be paid to work on software,
>> but also demanding it be free to the world, and to them.
>
> OSS programmers (not all of them of course, but that's hardly the
> point here) _do_ get paid to work on software which is made "free to
> the world". You have no standing to dispute such a contractual
> relationship between an OSS programmer and their employer.

I can dispute and disagree with anything I want.

Besides, it's not the employer I have the beef with; it's the hypocritical
Linux moron who stumbles around yelling "Linux/OSS is and should be free!
and Free. Hell no! I won't pay for software, but please pay me to develop
it."

If you don't find that attitude farcical, then I don't know what.

> You think all such employers, without exception, are being cheated?

Did I say that? You're reading too much into my words.

> Good luck proving that. (Yeah right, Stanford University just hasn't
> been able to get back in the black since Knuth started giving away
> TeX.)
>
> You think all such OSS programmers, without exception, could get
> better-paying jobs producing CSS? Even better luck proving that.

Did I say that? Of course not. Nor did I imply anything of the sort, nor
do I believe that.

You might learn to deal with the actual words, not with what you think I'm
saying.


>> That kind of arrangement can exist only if the organization funds
>> OSS development by selling proprietary products.
>
> I don't see any evidence for that claim,

Then you can't read.

I guess I should qualify that statement by saying "In the long term, ..."
In the short term, a company can fund OSS development and burn money paying
for developers. But unless they have income derived from proprietary
products or services, they will not exist for long.

> but much more importantly,
> note that the "proprietary products" involved _don't_ have to be
> software.

Yes. Not only do they not have to be software products, they usually
aren't.

>> A transaction or anything else "fundamentally rooted in basic tenets
>> of capitalism" doesn't necessarily make it right.
>
> No, it just makes those calling it "communist" look, well,
> "mentally-challenged".

Did I call such an arrangement communist? No. Never. Not here or
elsewhere.

I sense another kier on the horizon.


>> Even though your insane mind went off on a long tangent, I'm glad you
>> brought this OSS/academia/CSS comparison up. It's clear the closed
>> source world (public and private organizations generating patented
>> products) has contributed much more to the advancement of the world
>> than the OSS, everything should be free, "communist" crowd could
>> ever hope to.
>
> <rolls eyes> Gee, the "Commies!" schtick again,

Not again. Not ever. Though the nutcase world of OSS certainly has
communistic traits.

> and it was only dealt
> with it forty lines up. And if you really got nothing more out of the
> above than the absurd idea that all research scientists at
> universities do is "generate patented products", then the "tangent"
> really was a little too long for you; my apologies.

Here you go again, similar to the idiot kier, trying to tell me what I
learned, or what I read.

> Here's a shorter version for you to take a stab at: you _don't_ need
> to pay patent royalties to read a peer-reviewed scientific journal,
> all you need is a library card.

And? Who ever said anything otherwise?

>>> Still a bloody silly point. Again, look at the parallels in the
>>> sciences -- there's a reason they're called "Maxwell's Equations",
>>> "Feynman diagrams" etc. etc. Credit where credit is due is a
>>> fundamental part of capitalism after all. (You're not a _commie_,
>>> are you? ;))
>>
>> Credit where credit is due - for something for which recognition is
>> deserved. But "DFS' Equations" wouldn't be worth recognizing, nor
>> would "Edward's Equations". Now that won't stop me or you from
>> vainly labeling our output, but it doesn't change the worth of the
>> output.
>
> You can't call standard operating procedure "vanity".

Why not? A Linux moron writes some half-ass software, then to stoke his ego
proudly plasters his name and picture all over the code and webpage, and
puts it on his resume?

> My name appears
> in the author list of all the peer-reviewed articles I've written;
> that's not vanity, that's SOP.

The difference is your published articles are reviewed and approved by
educated, discerning peers. Linux/OSS distros, on the other hand, throw
anything and everything in, as long as it's FREE!. A system like Debian
includes 8,700 some odd software packages?!?!


>> I see parallels in the mentally-challenged OSS world: the
>> overwhelming majority of OSS code isn't nearly good enough to sell,
>> so they submit it to Debian and they include it alongside thousands
>> of other amateurish packages. If you deny this, you are fooling
>> yourself.
>
> So it's not per se the presence of the author's name on the work
> that's "vanity", only exaggerated claims about its quality that would
> be. Good of you to point that out.

You're welcome. Anytime.


Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Jan 28, 2005, 2:45:57 AM1/28/05
to
Edwards <edw...@nouce.trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:

>> A typical academic journal is utterly unlike open source. It is an
>> expensive purchase.
>
> Sure, an individual subscription can be expensive, especially if the
> individual doesn't have, e.g., a membership in the professional
> organization sposoring the journal. (Heck, it's pricey even with such
> memberships. ;)) On the other hand, even if the individual only has
> access to a community library, they're very likely to be able to
> e.g. get a copy through interlibrary loan.

Yes, that's true.


>
>> The fact that one can copy articles from a journal has not a damn
>> thing to do with the generosity of the journal or its contributors,
>> but because DMCA-like restrictions on fair use haven't had much
>> impact on paper publications.
>
> I sincerely hope that isn't expected to change anytime soon. :( I was
> under the impression that libraries (granted, mostly university
> libraries, but still) made up a significant fraction of such journals'
> subsriber lists. I mean fair use seems (to me at least) too big a
> part of "the way things work" in academia for even the most
> prestigious journals to want to kill it.

Again, yeas.


>
>> Very often, a journal restricts the author's ability to publish his
>> own article freely on his website.
>
> True, but then the journal tends to hold the actual copyright to the
> article (a serious impediment to any analogy between peer-reviewed
> science and OSS, I agree). On the other hand, they don't tend to
> place significant restrictions on the ability of other authors to cite
> that article, which is what I mostly had in mind as being analogous to
> the process of an OSS author incorporating other OSS works into their
> own (e.g., the GPL I believe requires them to prominently indicate
> such sections of code and include the copyright notices from the
> source of that code).

But the journals would have no ability to restrict citations, unless
they started bundling journals with EULAs that restrict the
purchaser's fair use rights. It has nothing to do with the generosity
or high ideals of journal publishers[1], but just plain old fair use
law.

>
>> Publications may be "publicly disseminated" but they are not freely
>> disseminated.
>
> It's often argued here that OSS isn't really free in that sense either
> -- you need to pay for internet access to download stuff, or pay for a
> CD + shipping & handling, etc. I wasn't trying to claim that either
> OSS or peer-reviewed research was "free in price"; just that, as the
> barriers to getting "something" (the "IP" if you will) out of
> peer-review-reported work are vastly lower than those for
> patent-protected or trade-secret work, so the barriers to getting
> "something" out of a piece of OSS code are vastly lower than those for
> CSS.

I didn't mean free as in beer either. I meant free as in speech.
Journals very often require authors to transfer the copyrights to
published articles and they sometimes protect those copyrights fairly
closely. To be sure, no journal has ever asked me to withdraw my
web-published articles, but they certainly would have the right to do
so and I wouldn't be surprised if someday one did.

Academic journals are published by folks whose ideals are quite far
from the FSF, in my opinion. Articles are freely circulated simply
because that's how copyright law is *supposed* to work. It's gotten a
bit screwy in the technological setting, what with EULAs and the DMCA
restricting the exercise of fair use rights willy-nilly, of course.

Footnotes:
[1] Though, of course, citations are in the publisher's interest.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"I have written many words to sci.math, some of them are not even
meaningless." --Ross Finlayson

Edwards

unread,
Jan 31, 2005, 7:30:22 PM1/31/05
to
In article <87llae0...@phiwumbda.org>, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Academic journals are published by folks whose ideals are quite far
> from the FSF, in my opinion. Articles are freely circulated simply
> because that's how copyright law is *supposed* to work. It's gotten a
> bit screwy in the technological setting, what with EULAs and the DMCA
> restricting the exercise of fair use rights willy-nilly, of course.

Absolutely, I agree entirely.

--
Darrin

0 new messages