Brian Densmore wrote:
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Brian Densmore wrote:
Open source is about freedom, but not all government regulation is bad.
Freedom "to" or freedom "from"?
Yes. Both.
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.
I like knowing that not any Joe Schmoe can get a license to practice medicine,
In Kansas, a chiropractor can do a physical.
But you have to be licensed as a chiropractor.
So what? A licensed chiropractor is in no way qualified to do a physical!
Please refer to my original response that *not ALL gov't regulation is bad*) I never said "Ooooh, I love gov't regulation. Please give me more!
ok.
or that daycare facilities need to check for criminal records before hiring. I like the idea of my children being cared for by people who haven't been convicted of being a pedophile. Call me crazy.
Do they really? Can you cite the statute? How effective has it been?
Yes, they do. Criminal background checks are required of all licensed daycare in MO. No I can't cite it (well I could but I'm too lazy to go to the web and look it up). I don't know how effective it is. It's not of course going to catch those that have been smart enough to not get caught, but it's certainly better than nothing. If you can't see this then I pity you, as there are a lot of sick people out there and anything that can help to reduce the risk is in my book a *good thing*.
I'm not in need of any pity at this moment. But thanks for the offer. When I am, I'll let you know ;)
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.
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.
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?
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...
The problem is some times there's too much and other times there's not enough.
No. The problem is that sometimes it is coercive and sometimes it isn't.
Whatever.
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.
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...
I also like knowing that not just any Joe Shmoe can contribute to the official Linux kernel. There are regulations in place to prevent that.
Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not the NSA's. Anybody _can_ contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't regulations in place to prevent that
Yes. Ok, let's see you upload a patch to the linux archives. What you can't it has to be approved by Linus or one of his people? What you have to certify to them that you are free to contribute the code? Oh, they want a letter from your company, on company letterhead stating that? Ok, whatever. Have it your way there are no restrictions on submitting patches and code to the Linux kernel... in your little fantasy filled world.
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".
What you're referring to is: http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html
And as I said, but you clipped out:
There are self-governing processes in place to prevent people submitting code encumbered by coercive licenses and patents.
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.
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.
I like the idea that any Joe Schmoe has the freedom to qualify under the existing fair regulations to be able to contribute to the Linux kernel. Freedom is great but without some form of control there is chaos and chaos is not always a good thing.
I hate it when people use the word fair.
I can see you have issues.
Yes. This is one of them.
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?
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.
-- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist
ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com