The Selflessness of Open Source

"Messy Buu",

we have had this before. You don't know much about Open Source software and your opinion about it seems to be based on nothing but hatred; and that is quite sad.

If you had ever met Open Source luminaries, you would know that most of them are indeed selfless individuals who only want to help the world. And, incidentally, they do. They actually do do something about their dreams and let everybody participate, whether they want to invest their own time and labour or not. I use Open Source software regularly, every day, in fact. My OS of choice of Mac OS X, my editor is Emacs, I use the GCC, my server runs GNU/Linux, and my Web browser uses khtml.

But if you dislike Open Source software so much, you certainly have the option not to use any of it. And please, do consider the possibility that your uninformed opinions are, in fact, not "revelations".

While it is perhaps true that many Open Source luminaries are truly self-less. The public "tude" that is given by Open Source advocates is a real turn off.

Brad,

you are, of course, correct. However, this has nothing to do with "Messy Buu"'s statements. He deliberately mixes up Open Source developers and "fanatics" and "argues" that a claim "Open Source developers are selfless individuals" is somehow proven wrong because some fanatics (who are not usually developers) are not. He also speaks of an "obvious inferiority" as if that point was already accepted as true by everyone (it is not). And he very arrogantly then speaks of his own opinions (and fallacies) as "revelations".

The plain fact of the matter is that working for free and giving the product away IS usually a selfless and moral act. It is generosity and generosity was ALWAYS, until now, considered a good thing. The fact that some people don't like generosity doesn't make generosity any worse.

And all that means that "Messy Buu"'s opinions and statements are not so much "revelations" as they are simply wrong.

Yeah, the problem is that the Linux community comes across more like Nick Burns (from the SNL Computer Guy sketch), with an air of superiority. I'm a fan of Linux myself, and I can't deal with 99% of the Linux users I've had to deal with. Linux is like the Academic Elite of the computing world, and its users act accordingly. People in elite groups like to snub their noses at the lowly unenlightened masses. Linux will have this negative aura around it until a few large companies make it their pet project and do some serious PR spin (IBM is doing it with it's new Linux ads, though they're a bit obtuse and intimidating) and support effort behind it.

But then again, the people who bring about great advances in technology usually lack in the people skills area, so Linux and it's hordes of champions shouldn't really have to be different.

Lets face it, no matter what your ulterior motives may be to publishing open source software, even if it's to make a name for yourself, the fact that you're putting your complete program out there for free, code and all means you're making a contribution to the mass of public knowledge, which is a noble end.

Studies prove that they are NOT selfless. That only "interesting" parts of open source code get worked on. They do it because it's fun, and they learn. That is not selfless.

so one guy wrote a program and nobody volunteered to help him. and that´s significant enough to write an article an "The Selflessness of Open Source"?
well, this article is nonsense and that should be obvious, be it alone from the tone of the author. of course on a big blog site there are many of those kind, a lot of them probably even more irrelevant. but who features such stuff?

Jeremy,

such studies do NOT "prove" anything, they merely tell you something about how often something happens. Just because an act isn't 100% selfless doesn't mean it isn't selfless at all. There are people who give to charities because they like the feeling. But it's still an act of generosity to give.

Working on interesting parts of a project, having fun while programming, and learning can all be done by working on proprietary software as well. But giving the results away is the selfless act, and Open Source programmers do give away their work for others to improve or learn from.

You can't set up a study to "prove" that giving stuff away for free isn't selfless, you can merely point to evidence that creating such stuff isn't selfless, but the creation of software is not what differentiates Open Source and proprietary software. Both types create software, and learn from it.

I acknowledged that there are a few Open Source developers out there that are decent. Whether they are selfless or not is debatable. As for the obvious inferiority of Open Source software, I think comparing Linux, GCC, and khtml to their commercial counterparts is evidence of that.

Inferior? I guess it depends on your needs and points of comparison. For the average desktop user, Linux is overkill and doesn't have the tools they need. For the IT professional or server administrator, or hobbyist developer, Linux is the perfect choice. It's better than MS in many areas (and worse in others) GCC is actually considered to be one of the best compilers hands-down. Please frame your comments a bit better. Everything has it's use, and both Linux and Windows have their "best" and "worse" environments. You're doing nothing here but showing blind zealotry.

Messy,

Comparing Linux, GCC, and khtml to their "commercial" (I assume you mean proprietary) counterparts is evidence of what?

Do you think it is obvious that other kernels, other compilers, other HTML renderers are better? What is your argument for claiming that a given C compiler is better than, say, the C compiler that is part of GCC?

It seems that all your claims are always "obvious", to you. But what is your actual evidence? Did you test C compilers and GCC came last or did somebody else?

btw: wtf has Open Source to do with communism???? it´s pretty clear you know nothing about both topics.

Open Source and communism actually follow similar philosphy in a way.

Linux Art

IBM, SUN or RedHat seem to have a different opinion than you though. you´re younger than 20 right?
btw: i´m not sure you will get far with that "graphic arts" thing. better concentrate on your strongpoints.

I've thought about it, and I've realized that while I've been criticizing Open Source as a whole, it's actually only "Free Software" (as defined by the FSF) that suffers from the flaws I state. Except for hobbyist developers, I haven't seen anybody prefer Linux to BSD, a commercial UNIX, or even Windows.
Also, if giving something away freely is selflessness, then one can argue that Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. are selfless as well.

Alex,

Open Source has nothing to do with communism on the grounds that "Open Source" is merely a marketing scheme for Free software. But Free software is based on a communist philosophy indeed. That is, if one defines communism as an economic system that doesn't emphasize private but public property and works with the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs".


Messy,

no software suffers from the flaws you state, because you stated no actual flaws. You simply made up a few claims and didn't provide any evidence at all. Why is GCC worse than any other compiler collection? You made the claim, but didn't support it.

IBM seem to prefer Linux over the BSD kernel. So does Novell and, nowadays, Sun. IIRC IBM even spoke of Linux eventually replacing the AIX kernel in their strategy. Go figure.

Microsoft and Adobe do not give much away for free and they never give you anything for real, meaning that they allow you to do whatever you want with it once you have it (which I consider an important part of "giving"). Apple do give software away, very frequently too. Microsoft and Adobe give you permission to use the software, they don't give you the software itself. What I consider selfless is when you _produce_ something and then give it to others for free. But Microsoft and Adobe merely allow you to use what they have produced, they do not give it to you to keep and do with it what you will.

Yes, I'm sure IBM has adopted Linux because of its superiority just as car manufacturers adopted vinyl over leather because of its obvious superiority. As for GCC being worse, it's probably because it doesn't do its job as well as other compilers.
Let's see. Microsoft gives away software with restrictive licenses, but they aren't selfless, while developers of GPL software give away software with restrictive licenses, which is a selfless act? Maybe it's me, but a selfless act would be to give away the software without forcing users of it into a licensing scheme not of their choice, but I guess Linux fanatics feel that freedom is being told what to use. This is why Linux zealots are not taken seriously, especially when they act as if the GPL offers more "freedom" than the BSD license or even releasing the software to the public domain (which is the most selfless act of all).

Messy,

you are again showing off your ignorance, and that doesn't help your argument one bit. You are STILL unwilling to back up your claim about the GCC with any kind of evidence and you now seem to be eager to show that you don't know anything about Free software licensing either.

The GPL does _not_ in any way restrict what you can do with the software. It allows you to do ANYTHING you like. It just doesn't allow you to add your own restrictions. Many people don't seem to know that. The GPL is similar to a right to own a gun (to keep it simple). It means that I can own a gun, even if the same law forbids me to restrict anybody else's right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that my right to own a gun is limited in any way, it merely means that neither is anybody else's.

The plain fact is that Microsoft, in the case of some of their software, "produce" a permission which they give to me for free, while the FSF produce software which they give to me for free.

It's the difference between having permission to use the neighbour's hammer (in the way the neighbour wants me to use it) and having my own hammer (and being allowed to do with it whatever I want).

And until you learn these things and actually read the licences (you will be surprised that the GPL really doesn't stop you from doing anything with the software covered by it), there is really no argument; but merely your unconfirmed allegations and assertions and your unproven statement about the GCC being inferior to other compiler collections or C compilers you don't care to mention.

The GPL does _not_ in any way restrict what you can do with the software. It allows you to do ANYTHING you like. It just doesn't allow you to add your own restrictions. Many people don't seem to know that. The GPL is similar to a right to own a gun (to keep it simple). It means that I can own a gun, even if the same law forbids me to restrict anybody else's right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that my right to own a gun is limited in any way, it merely means that neither is anybody else's.

I'm sorry, but to most people, giving somebody something without any restrictions or obligations (i.e. something in the public domain and to a lesser extent the BSD license) tends to offer the receiver more freedom than giving somebody something that has restrictions should the receiver use it in one of his own projects. To claim that the GPL offers more freedom than the BSD license or public domain because it restricts the use of its software is doublespeak, which is where the communism of GNU comes into play.

Messy,

strawman! I didn`t say that the GPL gave the user more freedom than the BSD licence. In fact, and I agree with Richard Stallman here, I think both licences give the user the same freedoms. The difference is not about what you can do with the software, but about what you can demand of others.

Away you go again Messy , ranting and raving, you obviously have little understanding of the Computer industry, and its history, the whole industry has been build on contribtuions from all sectors, many good programs have come from boths sides and so has crap, however you statements show how little you have to do with open source or how little you understand how much it has contributed to the software industry in general, I should add that I use software from both and to give a comparison, Mozilla V IE6, try them both and you be the judge. Without these people beavering away just as other young developers have done in the past we will miss out on important inovation, no matter wh ends up with it. It also encourages competition, which in turn forces all produces of software to stay on their toes, so generally as I said, open source or not , all are contributors are an important part of development, growth and inovation in this industry. I say good on all contributors, and have no problems with paying for qualit software, and if this is done by donation on a voluntary basis, when I feel the project deserves it, or for a license fee, it dosen't matter as long as I get good software, that works and does what I want, I really don't understand why people are so down on open source,, maybe it is a bit like being scared of Muslims, lack of understanding.......

strawman! I didn`t say that the GPL gave the user more freedom than the BSD licence. In fact, and I agree with Richard Stallman here, I think both licences give the user the same freedoms. The difference is not about what you can do with the software, but about what you can demand of others.

I guess saying that it allows you to do anything you want isn't implying that it gives the user the freedom to do anything he wants with the software, but I'll ignore that. However, to suggest that the GPL offers the same freedoms as the BSD is ludicrous. I always thought selflessness didn't involve demands of others, but if that's the case, then how isn't the free software that Microsoft provides selfless? I guess I'd have to be a Linux zealot with an agenda to believe that the GPL provides as much freedom to the user as the BSD license or the public domain.

Away you go again Messy , ranting and raving, you obviously have little understanding of the Computer industry, and its history, the whole industry has been build on contribtuions from all sectors, many good programs have come from boths sides and so has crap, however you statements show how little you have to do with open source or how little you understand how much it has contributed to the software industry in general, I should add that I use software from both and to give a comparison, Mozilla V IE6, try them both and you be the judge. Without these people beavering away just as other young developers have done in the past we will miss out on important inovation, no matter wh ends up with it. It also encourages competition, which in turn forces all produces of software to stay on their toes, so generally as I said, open source or not , all are contributors are an important part of development, growth and inovation in this industry. I say good on all contributors, and have no problems with paying for qualit software, and if this is done by donation on a voluntary basis, when I feel the project deserves it, or for a license fee, it dosen't matter as long as I get good software, that works and does what I want, I really don't understand why people are so down on open source,, maybe it is a bit like being scared of Muslims, lack of understanding.......

Yes, I know about the history of the computer industry, and I know that the whole GNU generation hasn't played a part on it, unless one counts copying others to be playing a part in the industry.

Messy,

"I guess saying that it allows you to do anything you want isn't implying that it gives the user the freedom to do anything he wants with the software, but I'll ignore that."

You ignore way too many things, which is part of the problem. The rest is your ability to not only make up stuff as you go along but to apparently honestly believe that your opinions constitute fact. The GPL does offer the same freedoms as the BSD licence and if you read both licences you will be able to see that. And while we are at it, Microsoft provide no "free software" at all. When you attempt to discuss anything related to the GPL or BSD licence you should at the very least learn the difference between proprietary freeware ad free software as defined by the GPL or BSD licence.

And no, Messy, it is very apparent that you do not know much about the history of the computer industry. And your belief that the GNU people have merely copied is now as wrong as it was when you were last corrected. Apparently you don't even learn; or refuse to accept facts.

Do you actually believe that anybody takes you serious?

I have seen many advocates of proprietary software in my time, but NEVER EVER was one so utterly uninformed, so completely ignorant of free software, and so convinced that his opinions were facts and his silly ideas "revelations" as you seem to be.

I'll admit that I don't know the licenses by heart, but if I remember correctly, as this one Linux zealot writes on Slashdot. the BSD license allows developers to incorporate BSD code into their products without anymore than an acknowledgement of who created that code, while the GPL forbids developers to incorporate GPL code into their products unless their products are under the GPL as well. Now, maybe it's only my opinion (as well as everybody else's), but those two licenses are very different, and one can see that a developer has more freedom to do what they will with code under the BSDL than they do with the GPL'd code. Surely you knew that.

(I'm also using the actual definition of the word "freedom" and not RMS' doublespeak version (another trait of communism!), so I'm not going to listen to any arguments that the definition of a word from a forty-year-old virgin is correct while the definition used by the rest of the world isn't.)

It is true that the GPL demands that derivative works must also fall under the GPL, but that is no restriction on what you may do with the software. It is a restriction on what you may demand from other people. Your freedoms as a user of the software are not affected by it. It merely concerns your freedoms of taking away these freedoms from others. I don't think this is really an issue for software users. I mean how often do you decline to use software because you couldn't rerelease it under different terms? But I have seen people decline to use software because of restrictions on how they can _use_ the software. Even developers have the same freedoms with both licences, the GPL's demand merely concerns those who want to add restrictions, not those who use or develop software per se.

And you can stop your little "me and the world" game because nobody is believing it anyway. RMS does not use a different definition of freedom than anybody else. I believe you have just decided that this is your last line of defence, the last quasi-argument you could bring up to defend your ignorant position.

I think your real problem with the GPL is that it effectively forbids other people to do what you have claimed the GNU people did: profit from others' work without paying them anything. You can't even imagine how often the points of advocates of capitalism (of your type, not the general such) come all down to "How can lazy people profit from this for free?". If there is any freedom the GPL restricts it is the freedom to make a profit by selling other people's work. If that is a problem for you, you will probably fail in a capitalist society and would actually need a communist society to keep you on top of things.

Even developers have the same freedoms with both licences, the GPL's demand merely concerns those who want to add restrictions, not those who use or develop software per se.

Nope. The developer cannot choose the license of the software that includes GPL'd code while the developer can with BSD code. Playing semantics won't work either.