the corporation, and the shotgun wedding
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Jan 19, 2008 5:53 PM EDT |
Very interresting. I'll go along with what this guy says. Gentle people, start your flame throwers. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2008 3:16 AM EDT |
I don't know how much I agree with the guy, but I know that I have stopped using the term "Open Source". My reasons probably differ from most, however: The term "Open Source" was coined as a marketing term to ease the uptake of free software by business, especially major corporations. It was a natural move from a geekly mindset, as source availability is the mechanism driving full software freedom. Unfortunately, geeks and marketing tend not to mix effectively. Much of the intended effect has been realized -- free software is now widely used in the business world. However... I used free software in the corporate world for years. And years. I broke into the apache source code one time. I ran through perl module source code on a number of occasions, but perl is a scripted language, so license didn't much matter. But we used it all of the time. We ran Linux. We used apache. We used libxml, gcc, etc, etc, etc, even though we didn't break open the source. Turns out that the biggest benefit of free software to business is the freedom. Open source is an enabler, or can be a nice benefit in its own right. Freedom is the real benefit of Open Source software. So, I've gone back to the original name -- free software. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 7:10 AM EDT |
Funny I have taken the opposite outlook Dino. I find the term Free Software to be riddled with moralistic judgment. If as a developer I choose to not release my work under some Free Software license then deemed immoral in the eyes of the Free Software pantheon, a sinner to the great computing deities. I find that the users of the term Free Software are more than willing to pass that moral judgment on the whole as often as the guy on TV is willing to call me a blasphemer and sinner. Using morals as a basis for what is acceptable and what is not is admitting to standing on shaky ground. What any one person see's as moral may or may not agree with what any other single person see's as the same. Morals change as people do, it was once moral in every part of the world to stone someone to death for some transgression or even merely the hint of one. Luckily that outlook on moral rights and responsibilities is now limited to only a few places. However this does not stop the verbal stoning from those who place themselves on the "moral high-ground" of those who do not believe as they do. The term Open Source on the other hand, that leads in my mind only to a technical debate. If I use Open Sourced software as a basis for a project then I must in turn return the finished product to the community. This is a technical choice that I must agree to prior to using someone else's code. Share and share alike, codified politeness, or just common decency, call it what you like. There is however no one howling for blood if the choice is made not to use Open Source. There are those in the Open Source side of the house that will say "you know you could have and it would have been better if you had" without looking for the verbal tinder, kindling, and a developer tied to a stake. Computers are not moral or immoral, neither is software any more than a car is. Free Software Fanatics are as willing to pass judgment on your digital hygiene as Greenpeace is on your owning a car. The outlook from that camp could nearly be described as Computing Fascism (see footnote). Personally I prefer technical and immutable to specious morality. I for one will use the term Open Source and do my failing best not to judge others on their choices or actions however alien they may seem to me. Footnote: here is a good article that describes fascism, not as just the vaguely abhorrent word that gets bandied about to get peoples blood boiling. Rather a description is easy to understand terms of what it actually is. I feel in the context in which I used the word it was fitting and accurate. http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2008 7:28 AM EDT |
> ...here is a good article that describes fascism... Well, when it starts with: Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology... Which is completely incorrect, I find it hard to take anything else it says seriously, and did not bother with the article. Both fascism and nazism were offshoots of socialism, which makes them left wing ideologies. The definition you want is at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism as definition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2008 7:45 AM EDT |
>. I find the term Free Software to be riddled with moralistic judgment. Eye of the beholder and all that. From a business perspective, Open Source gives short shrift to free software's strongest selling points. Focus on the source turns free software into a technical issue instead of a strategic one. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 7:46 AM EDT |
jd, read the rest and then comment. However this is not the place to discuss the finer points of political theory. The link provided was used for reference for correct use of the word instead of being a randomly inflammatory remark. As for the M-W link, definition one fits as well if one changes nations to software and race to users, to make it actually relevant to the definition of the word as used in my post. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2008 7:56 AM EDT |
> The link provided was used for reference for correct use of the word I wasn't disagreeing with your usage of the word. As far as I can tell you used it correctly. I was merely disagreeing with the link and supplying what I felt was a simpler yet better definition. > ...definition one fits as well if one changes nations to software and race to users... Comparatively well, yes. It seems to me that the key point is always the desire to control others and not to allow opposing viewpoints. Pretty much any ideology can fall into that trap, though some are more resistant to it than others. And even if the overall ideology resists, there will always be some followers who don't. :( |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
> ...read the rest and then comment. OK. It still doesn't recognize that fascism is a direct offshoot of socialism, or that it's complete control of the economy by the state is incompatible with capitalism. It does recognize the totalitarian nature of fascism and it's willingness to use violence to suppress opposition. IMO, it's emphasis on the hostility of fascism to marxism is overstated, as this is merely the normal sibling rivalry that exists between any offshoots of a philosophy (the old "there can be only one"). Otherwise it's better than I expected. However, this is all off-topic and very much non-TOS. I only commented further to respond to your direct comment above. Scott, et.al. Feel free to delete this if you want. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 9:47 AM EDT |
Dino, I hate to disagree with your view point (actually I rather enjoy it, but ....) I think you have it turned around. Neither Open Source or Free Software has ever been "about" business. The fact that businesses can find ways and models to use and accept it is a bonus, not the goal, or even a goal. Nor is it in the end necessary for the survival for either. Focusing on business considerations at all dilutes both viewpoints and makes your argument specious. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2008 11:56 AM EDT |
>Neither Open Source or Free Software has ever been "about" business. Which has nothing to do with anything. >Focusing on business considerations at all dilutes both viewpoints and makes your argument specious. If you're going to use fancy words you should try articulating thoughts that won't embarrass you. To wit: 1. The term "Open Source" was coined with reference to business uptake. Ergo, a discussion about Open Source that references business use is entirely appropriate. 2. Your "about business" nonsense is pure tripe. Free software is "about" users and their rights, including business users. Changes were even made to the GPLV3 with specifically to accommodate certain business practices. I am not speculating about this. I actually discussed it face-to-face with the Executive Director of the FSF, and I would trust his judgment over yours. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 20, 2008 12:03 PM EDT |
I use the term "open source" deliberately to avoid the confusion with things provided at no price. If the term had been "Libre Software", there wouldn't be any confusion. But we're stuck with freeware and shareware to confuse the issue of "free" software. The word "fascism" comes from the same root as "faggot" being a bundle of sticks. It comes from the Roman symbol of the collective, a bundle of sticks and an axe tied into a bunch, all together for the common good. You can see an example of this symbol in this picture, bottom left, being held by a figure that looks a lot like Mussolini: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=100 Darn, it comes through much better in the hard-copy book. Oh well. Can't think of another picture off the top of my head. {edit: on the right side of the en.wikipedia page on fascism, there's a picture. who'd'a thunk it?} Fascism also has an economic definition, titular ownership of private property under tight control by a central authority (government). So in a way, Microsoft software is fascist. Oh sure, you paid for it, but you don't actually own it. Microsoft owns it, and sets all the terms of its use. I've always been the most disgusted by the fact that you're not "allowed" to test it and publish benchmarks. What Microsoft does doesn't directly effect me anyway, because they can't make me buy it or use it. As long as that remains the case, we can continue to have such discussions over semantics. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 20, 2008 12:14 PM EDT |
Ok, here is the full story, just in case anyone is interested. I guess I was. http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/fasces/fasces.html "Fasces: set of rods bound in the form of a bundle which contained an axe. In ancient Rome, the bodyguards of a magistrate carried fasces." and... "The use of fasces by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is quite another story. In 1921, he called his political movement Fasci di combattimento, fascio being the Italian word for peasant organizations and labor unions. When il duce chose the ancient Roman fasces as symbol of the fascist party, he was at the same time playing with the similarity of the words fascio and fasces, chosing an ancient symbol, and drawing a parallel between fascism and progressive movements of the past." |
| hkwint Jan 20, 2008 12:54 PM EDT |
Note: This view represents my own, not LXer's Since there's not a single accepted definition of the term 'fascism' and since fascism in the beginning (1919 manifesto) meant something else than later on, there can only be confusion about this term, as can be seen in this thread. Therefore, I suggest referring to Computing Fascism isn't a good idea at all - except that it certainly serves as a flamebait for off-topic discussions - as what's being referred to by Fascism is not clear. Pointing (by means of linking) to one possible explanation of 'fascism' doesn't cause everybody to forget about ones own view of fascism. Also, it is easily possible people can be offended or grieved if they or others are referred to as 'Computer Fascists'. Because we don't want LXer readers to start discussions in violation of TOS, flamebaits, off-topic discussions and because we don't want them to grieve or offend other readers, I think it's better to avoid the term fascism and indeed point to 'the properties one suppose fascism has' than using the term fascism itself. I see where Azerthot is pointing at: Some of fascism's supposed properties in the article he links to are also applicable to Free Software, in Azerthot's view. However, not all of the properties of the article linked to are applicable to Free Software. I think (but I'm not the boss, Scott is, and he may decide to do whatever with this thread he thinks is best) it's OK to discuss the properties claimed by the article linked to, and Free Software. I assume that's Azerthot's intention anyway. Therefore, I think it's good to distillate the properties of the article linked to - like 'male supremacy' or 'populism' and see if they are applicable to Free Software. I'd say at least the two I mentioned are not. However, some other properties are applicable to Free Software, like 'a myth of rebirth after a period of decline or destruction'. When RMS started Free Software, the university he worked for tried to decline or destruct the free availability of sourcecode. Purging 'alien forces' is also one of the things which sometimes happens in the 'Free Software' world, but that's not a unique property of Free Software, it happens in proprietary firms and in the BSD world too. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 1:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:From a business perspective, Open Source gives short shrift to free software's strongest selling points. Focus on the source turns free software into a technical issue instead of a strategic one. Unless I misread that, you, not I brought business concerns into the conversation in such a manner that the concerns of business are in some way superior. Nor, do I notice now why a strategic decision should be made on a moral basis while over the technical. You yourself have pointed out that technical is defensible while intent and morality is a much more slippery slope. Granted that a meeting with Netscape was the impetus in part for the term Open Source, you fail to mention that it was also to separate from "the moralizing and confrontational attitude" of the FSF. Those aren't my words but the words of Todd Anderson, John "maddog" Hall, Larry Augustin, Michael Tiemann, and Eric Raymond. Your second point actually strengthens my position. The GPLv3 does indeed make adjustments pertaining to business practices, in further limiting them from a wholly moralistic viewpoint, namely the "Tivo Clause". In which they ignore the technical, that it is possible to code for that hardware from an Open Source or Free Software position, Linus did it for the original Linux Kernel. However for the FSF it was easier to legislate (for lack of a better word) around the issue. In discussing the matter with the leadership of the FSF, I'm glad you had that opportunity, how ever it in no way validates your argument. Of course you are going to hear things that coincide with your stated stance as it aligns with your own. If you hadn't noticed it is the FSF that condones and supports a moralistic stance to the exclusion of any technical argument, the perpetrators of Computing Fascism. It's the same reason I listen to Glenn Beck, because he says things that make sense to me that I agree with, it doesn't make either he or I correct. As to your parting comment, I prefer to think for myself than be swayed by moralistic rhetoric, and the difference between Open Source and Free Software is that rhetoric. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 1:37 PM EDT |
hkwint, as I stated previously, it was not my intent to enter into a debate over the word as it is traditionally inflammatory. The included link was wholly so that there would be a way for readers to see the actual manner in which the word was used, instead of relying upon the generally distasteful and often misused meanings of the word itself. jdixon offered an excellent secondary source of reference. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2008 2:03 PM EDT |
azerthoth - Get out your dictionary, if needed, and try to comprehend the following sentence: >My reasons probably differ from most, however: |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 20, 2008 3:32 PM EDT |
I agree with hkwint that 'fascism' has no single definition and is almost always used inaccurately, especially when used in 'name calling' or as 'flamebait' to get under someone's skin. I think sticking to the technical terms, whether they are as accurate or correct as we would like, are the way to go. Using political or religious terms either alone or in conjunction with technical terms to describe something or someone in a technical conversation seems at its minimum ( used in a non-derogatory way ), inappropriate and at its maximum ( in a derogatory way ), blatantly disrespectful. Obviously there is a huge gray area on this, adverbs are plentiful and who here hasn't combined terms in a creative ways all there life, I do it all the time. I know that I can think of all kinds of examples where divergent terms are used to describe or name things and people. But I go back to my minimum and maximum definition. It doesn't seem right to use them purposely in a negative and/or disrespectful manner towards who you are talking to or what you a talking about. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2008 4:11 PM EDT |
> I think it's good to distillate the properties of the article linked to - like 'male supremacy' or 'populism' and see if they are applicable to Free Software. Well, given the dominance of males in the FOSS development world, and the numerous complaints about the reception women receive there, I think a case for male supremacy could be made. I don't think it's a valid case, but it would be possible to make one. I agree with Scott and hkwint that using the term fascism in reference to anything other than a political movement which directly tries to link itself to the older fascist movements is probably a mistake (I can't see one coming about, but anything is possible). While the term is a powerful one (mostly due to the lingering memories of World War II), it has been so misused over the years that it's lost any clear meaning. |
| azerthoth Jan 20, 2008 4:15 PM EDT |
I am of course open to alternatives that describe and include the stated goals of the subjugation and domination of a specific subset of the economy and population. All the while proclaiming to redress a fictitious moral wrong. Not to be rude or combative on the topic, short of another word that represents that philosophy, I believe I used it correctly. It was not aimed at Dinotrac nor intended to be taken as such, it was used to accurately and succinctly summarize the publicly stated goals of the FSF and RMS. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2008 4:38 PM EDT |
> I am of course open to alternatives that describe and include the stated goals of the subjugation and domination of a specific subset of the economy and population. Authoritarian and Totalitarian work fairly well. > All the while proclaiming to redress a fictitious moral wrong. That's an oversimplification. The wrong has to have some basis in reality for people to buy into it, tenuous though it may be. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2008 6:01 PM EDT |
>The wrong has to have some basis in reality for people to buy into it, tenuous though it may be. But the wrong does not actually have to be committed by the targets of the anger. The Nazis made scapegoats of the Jews for very real wrongs resulting from the ruinously punitive terms of the armistice ending WWI. |
| thenixedreport Jan 21, 2008 1:33 AM EDT |
Don't forget, that Hitler knew what he was saying was complete BS too (ironically enough, he was half Jewish if memory serves......). So, shall we invoke the Law of Godwin yet? |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2008 1:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:So, shall we invoke the Law of Godwin yet? That won't work. See Quirk's Exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#Corollaries_and_us... Instead, I suggest we simply drag the discussion back on topic :-) |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 21, 2008 2:51 AM EDT |
From the Wikipedia article..Quoting:inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons That's my kind of three word description! Now if I had just read that article before writing my post.. it would have been a lot shorter. :-) |
| jdixon Jan 21, 2008 5:03 AM EDT |
> But the wrong does not actually have to be committed by the targets of the anger. I was thinking of adding that, but couldn't come up with any reasonable (everything I tried came out too garbled) way of saying it. Thanks Dino. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 21, 2008 1:41 PM EDT |
Its my birthday. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2008 1:48 PM EDT |
>Its my birthday. Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, deal Colonel. Happy birthday to you!! Now blow out the candles and make a wish. On my birthday, I wished for enough wind to blow out the candles. |
| jdixon Jan 21, 2008 2:45 PM EDT |
> Its my birthday. Best wishes for this one and many more. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 22, 2008 3:35 AM EDT |
> Its my birthday. I hope it was wonderful. Many more! |
| azerthoth Jan 22, 2008 8:49 AM EDT |
Just remember to check the fire ordinances for next year, there may be something about THAT many candles in one place and time constituting a bonfire and needing a burn permit. happy b-day. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!