<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
<TITLE>RE: Open Source Values</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Brian Densmore wrote: </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Garrett Goebel wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> Brian Densmore wrote: </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> Open source is about freedom, but not all government regulation is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> bad.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> Freedom "to" or freedom "from"? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Yes. Both.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I must strongly disagree. OSS enables people to do things. Regulation protects you from things. So when you are talking about OSS you are talking about a different kind of freedom than that provided by regulations.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>> I like knowing that not any Joe</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> Schmoe can get a license to practice medicine,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> In Kansas, a chiropractor can do a physical. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>But you have to be licensed as a chiropractor. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So what? A licensed chiropractor is in no way qualified to do a physical!</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Please refer to my original response that *not ALL gov't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>regulation is bad*) I never said "Ooooh, I love gov't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>regulation. Please give me more!</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ok.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>> or that daycare facilities need to check for criminal records</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> before hiring. I like the idea of my children being cared for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> by people who haven't been convicted of being a pedophile. Call</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> me crazy.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> Do they really? Can you cite the statute? How effective has it been? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Yes, they do. Criminal background checks are required of all licensed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>daycare in MO.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>No I can't cite it (well I could but I'm too lazy to go to the web and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>look it up).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>I don't know how effective it is. It's not of course going to catch</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> those that have been smart enough to not get caught, but it's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> certainly better than nothing. If you can't see this then I pity you,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> as there are a lot of sick people out there and anything that can help</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to reduce the risk is in my book a *good thing*.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'm not in need of any pity at this moment. But thanks for the offer. When I am, I'll let you know ;)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The whole "anything that can help" line of reasoning is a load of bunk. There are huge costs associated with governmental regulations. Regulations have tendency to grow and protect the established players and status quo instead of the people they were meant to protect.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The statute happens to be: Licensing Rules for Group Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers, 19 CSR 30-62.102 Personnel, 1-L. And from a quick scan, I'm not sure that a pedophile from KC, KS with a criminal record would show up in a review from the Missouri State Highway Patrol... Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But, I can't find a review of its efficacy. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I don't argue that it is a good and prudent practice to check people's backgrounds. It's bad practice not to. I question the cost and effectiveness of government mandated compliance. Government regulations are slow to change, rarely are written by reputable experts in the problem domain, and often bog down in irrelevant minutia. There are at least 80 forms for Missouri Child Care Centers alone. Centers probably have to keep at least one full time employee on hand just to file the paperwork. And where's the accountability? If a state certified a child care facility does something very bad, does the state's reputation suffer? Does it respond and change quickly and effectively to meet consumers demands?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I trust word of mouth reputation more than a government license. Do you know how hard colleges work to place well in the U.S. News and World Reports yearly rankings? How damn Consumer Reports, Underwriters Lab's, or a 20/20 review can be? If only there was less government mandating and more voluntary independent oversight...</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>> The problem is some times there's too much and other times there's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> not enough.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>No. The problem is that sometimes it is coercive and sometimes it isn't. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Whatever.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'm fine with that. I respect your right to have an opinion and wounded backlash sarcasm. I don't however have to agree that you or anyone else has a right to coerce me into compliance with your opinions. Regulation == force of law == coercion.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I don't mind at all if there is a pile of government specified best practices from here to the moon. It's the coercion of involuntary compliance that I take issue with. Centralized government is not the place to be solve every problem. It actually prevents better solutions from coming along...</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>> I also like knowing that not just any Joe Shmoe can contribute to the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> official Linux kernel. There are regulations in place to prevent </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> that.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> the NSA's. Anybody _can_ contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> regulations in place to prevent that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Yes. Ok, let's see you upload a patch to the linux archives. What you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>can't it has to be approved by Linus or one of his people? What you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>have to certify to them that you are free to contribute the code? Oh,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>they want a letter from your company, on company letterhead stating</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>that? Ok, whatever. Have it your way there are no restrictions on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> submitting patches and code to the Linux kernel...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>in your little fantasy filled world.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Calling that a regulation is a bit of a stretch. Linus' process does not have the force of law. You're conflating the ideas of "force of law to control conduct" and "protect your legal ass".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>What you're referring to is: <A HREF="http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>And as I said, but you clipped out:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> There are self-governing processes in place to prevent people</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> submitting code encumbered by coercive licenses and patents.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It's still an opt-in, that is no different than the kernel's GPL licensing terms to share and share alike. It's just another legal i that we have to dot because under intellectual property right law you are guilty until proven innocent.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I've contributed to the linux kernel in the past, and time and ability permitting someday I'd like to contribute again. It was Linux more than anything that inspired me to revisit the roots of my interests in computers and make a profession of it. I've never contributed code to the kernel, but I have reported bugs and followed through on requests for information. Albeit, that was 10+ years ago when I had the free time to tinker with projects beyond my ability. I've contributed code and documentation to many projects and cross references to pertinent information between them. In only one case have I been asked to provide legal documentation. And in that case, nothing ever came of the project.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>> I like the idea that any Joe Schmoe has the freedom to qualify under </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> the existing fair regulations to be able to contribute to the Linux </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> kernel. Freedom is great but without some form of control there is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>> chaos and chaos is not always a good thing.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> I hate it when people use the word fair.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>I can see you have issues.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yes. This is one of them.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>How is it "fair" that existing "regulations" require a Developer's Certificate of Ownership to prove that code submissions are unencumbered by coercive licenses and patents? How is it "fair" that Linux kernel developers have to prove their innocence in a society that claims you are innocent until proven guilty?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Nobody wanted that DCO. Its a purely defensive measure forced on them because of SCO and the messed up legal system we have that allows companies like SCO to bully us all for protection money over ideas. </FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Garrett Goebel</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>IS Development Specialist</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>