Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Open-Source and Objectivism

From: Chen Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:41:02 +0200

> I spotted this article on Google:
> 
> http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/opensource.html
> 

> A good read, no doubt, if you're into Objectivism.

Interesting read. I have few comments, though:

1. The author is mixing FSF actions and philosophy. Their phylosophy is
undoubtly contradictory to Objectivism, they claim IP as immoral. Their
actions are irrelevant, they made good software, they wrote a bad license,
whatever. An Objectivist should oppose the FSF on moral grounds.

2. One of the parts that made a great impression on me when I first read
"Atlas Shrugged", was when Dagny had to pay for the use of Hammond's car
when visiting the valley the first time. I remeber being as shocked as she
was. I mean, who'd want to live in a society of nitpickers who charge 25
cents for a ride? 
But this is a basic part of the Objectivist philosophy. Money is an
*objective* standard of value.
You pay 25 cents for a ride, because you value the car, and the time of the
driver.

In Linux, there is no objective standard for value. You have no way to
measure how much you are "worth" to the community, the rewards are extremely
subjective.
Linux isn't "anti-objectivist", but its not Galts-Gultch either.

Thanks,
Chen.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:19:48 +0200 (IST)

> whatever. An Objectivist should oppose the FSF on moral grounds.

Actually, an Objectivist may oppose an entity on the grounds that its
philosophy is harmful.

> Linux isn't "anti-objectivist", but its not Galts-Gultch either.

I hate to disagree with you here. I have received several objective
rewards for making Freecell Solver. True, I did not receive it from any
person who downloaded and used the software, but some people did give such
to me.

Examples:

1. I now receive a boxed set of the new releases of RedHat Linux (without
the support) by virtue of being an Open-Source developer.
2. I received patches, suggestions and important input from other people.
3. Several people have integrated Freecell Solver into their Freecell
implementations, by thus giving it graphical front-ends.
4. I received a lot of experience and insights regarding programming from
writing and perfecting it.
5. One time when I was in an employment fair in the Technion, a potential
employee was very impressed by the fact that I wrote a Freecell program. I
did not get a job, because I was only willing to work for 3 monthes,
but nonetheless it was a fact.

I'm not aware of anyone who made a fortune by writing a Freecell solver
per-ce. (and I'm aware of only one implementation that is shareware -
Freecell Tool). Maybe some people would have been willing to pay for a
Freecell program that had a very good solver. But when I released Freecell
Solver 0.2, I did not think much of it at the time. It just seemed natural
that I distribute it as free software.

Freecell Solver (the upcoming version would be 2.0) is still distributed
under the Public Domain now, despite the fact that it is now much better
than 0.2. I do not regret the fact that it is not properietary, despite
the fact that I invested a lot of time and effort in it.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> Thanks,
> Chen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:27:47 +0200

DISCLAIMER: I am not an objectivist, but I play one on mailing lists.

> Interesting read. I have few comments, though:

Has too many inaccuracies and irrelevencies for my taste. E.g., what
has the author's (explicit) assumption that free software can destroy
professional software authoring to do with its compatibility with 
objectivism? If at all, I'd say that an objectivist SHOULDN'T 
consider what is good for the software industry as a whole when they
decide on their licensing.

I don't think it's very interesting to show that licensing your 
software under an open-source license is not an anti-objectivist 
choice, because ESR already talked about those issues and 
practically everyone knows his writings. Unless you directly 
address his arguments or the differences between an objectivist's 
basic premises and his libertarian ones.

Also, I wouldn't say it's a big effort to prove that the FSF is not 
objectivist. They use left-wing, anti-objectivist arguments like
"solidarity" all over the place. What IS interesting is whether the 
FSF's views regading software are anti-objectivist. So the reasons
why the FSF asks for copyrights to be assigned to it (which by 
themselves don't seem anti-objectivist to me) are not relevant.

And finally, I don't see the point of classifying the entire
Linux community as objectivist or anti-objectivist. It is made
up of a large variety of individuals, going all the way from
libertarian, pro-IP ESR, through the just-having-fun and anything-
goes Linus to the FSF junkie Alan.

> whatever. An Objectivist should oppose the FSF on moral grounds.

I wonder what in objectivism necessitates IP. I know that it was
Ayn Ran'd opinion that IP should be considered property, but I 
don't know how she justifies that. I remember the part in Atlas
Shrugged where the pirate (forgot his name) bombs factories 
producing unlicensed (or forcibly licensed) Rearden Metal. To me
it seemed awfully similar to a violent act of a government, stopping
productive activities by threat of force. Are there objectivists 
that consider IP a fiction? 

Also, it is not true that the FSF is opposed to IP. The FSF is 
pro-IP, it just thinks that it is abused in many circumentstances
(such as software). Stallman said as much in many interviews and
articles. Many FSF articles are distributable only without 
changes, and the FDL and the FSF's suggested free music license 
allow limitations of offline distribution. Even the GPL itself
is not anti-IP, or at least has more to it than being anti-IP: 
in an IP-less world you would still be able to distribute modified 
binaries of programs witout releasing the source. RMS's ideas also 
predate the time when IP covered software, and the GPL forbids 
limiting distribution of source code even by NDA, which that has 
nothing to do with IP laws.

The FSF's view on IP is enirely utilitarian (a left-wing and anti-
objectivist trait in itself): IP is a legitimate and limited giving 
up of freedoms by the society as a whole in order to gain certain
advanteges, e.g., more music. It just thinks that in the case of 
software, for example, that giving up serves society no longer.

> Linux isn't "anti-objectivist", but its not Galts-Gultch either.

Great point. But maybe you can say that your software is worth what
you are really paid to write it. A lot of free software is 
commercial nowdays. Also, I remember what the musician in Galt's 
Gulch said: that his reward is sometimes other people's realization
of his genius.