Subject: Could Free Software be developed in Union of Soviet Socialistic R epublics? (was RE: [hackers-il] "It is Time to Talk about Free Software")

From: Omer Musaev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:17:49 +0200

' -----Original Message-----
' From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[email-masked]]
' Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:18 AM
' To: [email-masked]
' Subject: [hackers-il] "It is Time to Talk about Free Software"
' 
' 
' I don't know how many of you are familiar with the group "oekonux"
' (http://www.oekonux.org/). This strange name comes from German, and is
' a contraction of "oekonomie" and "Linux", so it's easy to guess that
' they are a (mostly-German) discussion group about the 
' economic and social
' implications of Linux and of free software in general.
' 
' One of the interesting things about those people is that 
' rather than just
' saying what they think on this subject, they actually 
' research the relevance
' of old economic theory (with Marx apprently their favorite ;)) to free
' software.
' 
' One of those guys wrote a short essay http://guzinp.tripod.com/ about
' typical stuff that that group talks about (he even uses the weird term
' they invented, "self-unfolding", that supposedly sounds 
' better in German.
' 
' It's not the most interesting essay that I ever read but 
' there are several
' interesting ideas in that essay that I wonder how many of you 
' have thought
' about.
' 
' One of them is
' 
'    "The greatest irony of the Cold War was the Net. While struggling
'     against Stalinist communism, the US military unwittingly 
' supplied the
'     creation of cyber-communism."
' 
' Whether or not you agree that free software is akeen to 
' "cyber-communism",
' you have to agree that this is indeed quite an irony because 
' free software
' is more similar, both in practice and in spirit, to something 
' that should
' have been invented in the USSR than to something that should have been
' invented in the 60s in the USA.
' 

The last statement is untrivial. 

USSR prohibited (and enforced with jails) private property; there was no
single
person to claim full and exclusive rights on anything. However, as sadly as
it is 
to confirm, there were institutions to hold such rights. For example - works
of 
Babayan on super-computers (www.elbrus.ru) were property of Ministry of
Defense; 
more examples exist. 

In addition, Soviet economy was centralized. One could find himself in jail
for 
competition; the sentence would include phrases rhyming with "...waste of
nation 
resources...", "...decentralization of effort..." etc. I dare to state that
similarity 
"... in practice ..." between free software and "... something that should 
have been invented in the USSR..." does not exist. Free software could not
be practioned
in USSR.

Now, lets turn to the spirit. Let me concentrate on "free as in freedom"
meaning of the word.
The spirit (excuse my interpretation) is about extending freedom of speech
on software. However,
in order to extend freedom of speech, one has to have freedom of speech.
That's the missing link. 
In USSR no-one had freedom of speech. 

' -- 
' Nadav Har'El                        |     Friday, Oct 18 
' 2002, 13 Heshvan 5763
' [email-masked]             
' |-----------------------------------------
' Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A messy desk is a sign 
' of a messy mind.
' http://nadav.harel.org.il           |An empty desk is a sign 
' of an empty mind.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:39:49 +0200

> In USSR no-one had freedom of speech. 

The people who refer to the Internet and/or free-software as "communist"
obviously don't talk about freedom: nobody (besides certain Israelis in the
1950s ;)) thought that there was individual freedom in the USSR, or even in
the original communist ideas.

The "sprit" that they refer to is that of equality. Paraphrasing on the
British pre-women-suffrage "One Man, One Vote" slogan, the Internet
guaranteed "One IP, One full Internet presence"; until about 5 years ago,
every netizen ("citizen" of the Internet) had virtually the same rights and
duties on the Internet. No-one owned the "means of production" (the
infrastructure was funded by the US government and public institutions like
universities). "Small" hired people, from small departments in unknown places,
like Timo Salmi from the Finnish university of Vaasa (garbo.uwasa.fi) or
Keith Petersen from the US military (simtel.mil?  Or was it at WSMR? [1])
could do things that were traditionally reserved to wealthy entrepreneurs.

Also, free software is not only about freedom, but also about equality [2].

Of course, at the time, the USSR had neither freedom nor equality, so I
suppose the idea that the Internet should have come out of the USSR may
indeed be silly. May I remind you that it wasn't my idea - I was just
quoting some other person's essay? So don't blame me :)

[1] Does anyone remember? It was something like simtel-wsmr.army.mil, or
    something? I think I'm getting senile :(

[2] Yeah, the old shameless self-plug again:
    http://nadav.harel.org.il/essays/lfe.html

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Sunday, Oct 20 2002, 14 Heshvan 5763
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |For people who like peace and quiet - a
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |phoneless cord.

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Oct 2002 11:54:52 +0200

> Also, free software is not only about freedom, but also about

Are the two compatible?

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt(at)computer.org | http://www.goldshmidt.org/cv/
=============================================================================
First binary search algorithm - J. Mauchly, 1946.         |  Source: D. Knuth
First correct binary search algorithm - D.H.Lehmer, 1960  |  TAOCP, v.3, 1998

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:06:48 +0200

> > Also, free software is not only about freedom, but also about

Oh, you're opening a pandora's box now :)

Freedom and Equality are two ends of a spectrum that a society can choose
from. The two ends are certainly not compatible. But there are other points
in the middle of that spectrum. Moreover, a society can be in dynamic
equalibrium, moving back and forth in some area of that spectrum. It is
my theory that neither endpoints is stable - i.e., that any attempt to
create a totally "free state" or totally "egalitarian state" is bound to fail.

But I'm starting to get the feeling that this thread has worn out its welcome
in this list (I even got a call from one list member, denouncing me as a
communist :)).

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Sunday, Oct 20 2002, 14 Heshvan 5763
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |If you're looking for a helping hand,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |look first at the end of your arm.

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Oct 2002 12:52:15 +0200

> Oh, you're opening a pandora's box now :)

Just couldn't resist ;-)

> (I even got a call from one list member, denouncing me as a
> communist :)).

Wow! Was there a death threat involved? Will someone please grab
the gnumartyr.org domain quickly? ;-)