-----Original Message-----
From: Garrett Goebel
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.
Apples and oranges. These were two separate sentences. One talking about freedom. One about government regulation. Don't combine the two sentences into one, please. OSS is about freedom. That much we agree upon. You on the otherhand would like to see gov't regulation replaced with anarchy apparently. I, personally enjoy the fact that I can go to bed knowing that there is a police force out there that helps to prevent wholesale anarchy, and laws that set a guideline for what is and isn't acceptable in this society. I don't agree with a lot of the laws, but that doesn't mean I want to through them all away.
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!
Neither are a lot of doctors. You're point being? For what it's worth, I agree that a chiropractor isn't qualified to give a full physical. But that was your example not mine.
The whole "anything that can help" line of reasoning is a load of bunk.
Do you have any children?
There are huge costs associated with governmental regulations.
I don't care if it bankrupts the government. If one pedophile can be prevented from becoming a daycare provider it's worth it to me. (Before responding see later comment on self-regulation)
Regulations have tendency to grow and protect the established players
No doubt.
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.
It's likely you are wrong. The courts use the same method for checking on potential adoptive parents and one of the things checked for is felony convictions on child abuse and neglect. Don't ask me why or how. If you're really interested I can ask a State Trooper friend of mine.
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. ... I trust word of mouth reputation more than a government license. ...
I would love to trust word of mouth, but the problem is in order for that to be effective you need to know a lot of people.
If only there was less government mandating and more voluntary independent oversight...
I would love to see companies be conscientious and all government regulation go away. Only that is unlikely to happen, in any commercial market in the US in the foreseeable future.
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.
Wow! Another item we agree upon. ;')
I don't mind at all if there is a pile of government specified best practices from here to the moon.
The problem here being companies that do not adhere to them to the harm of the people. That is why we now have child labor laws. About half of my Irish ancestors who immigrated here from Ireland were killed or maimed in factories, before those laws were passed. Because companies refused to self-regulate. There were better solutions to the government mandated laws, but better solutions are only better if someone is willing to actually implement it. There are better solutions than criminalizing p2p software or suing the crap out of teens, but unless the companies making the music are willing to implement it, it is irrelevant.
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".
No even before the new policies Linus was careful about accepting changes. A large part of that is to ensure that garbage and backdoors don't get into the code.
What you're referring to is: http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html
No I wasn't. That's part of it and I included some of that in my wording.
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.
Self-governing == self-regulating
It's still an opt-in
Absolutely. The fact is not all regulations are bad. Also not all government regulations are bad. In fact some are very beneficial. Ones like it is illegal to kill your neighbor because you disagree with his point of view. It allows us to argue back and forth with some reasonable assurance neither of us are likely to hunt down and kill the other. Of course there is no guarantee of that. Just like there is no guarantee that any company will obey any given regulation.
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. ... 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 knew you had, and that was the reason for that particular comment. Still I doubt any of the projects you contributed would have allowed you to contribute code anonymously. If so, please let me know so I can remove those programs from my system.
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?
Two things. One how fair is it to allow people to steal the code from companies and give that code to someone else without the companies' permission? Life isn't fair, we must do what we can to improve that as best we can. Hence, the need for regulations when necessary and all other attempts have failed. Two, who ever said our society claims you are innocent until proven guilty? There is the presumption of innocence. As opposed to the presumption of guilt. One must prove guilt not innocence, that is all the law says. Don't stretch it into something it isn't. One is charged with a crime because of suspicion of guilt. Anyway enough of this.
peace, Brian
Brian Densmore wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Apples and oranges. These were two separate sentences. One talking about freedom. One about government regulation. Don't
combine the
two sentences into one, please. OSS is about freedom. That much we
agree upon.
You on the other hand would like to see gov't regulation replaced with anarchy apparently. I, personally enjoy the fact that I can go to bed
knowing
that there is a police force out there that helps to prevent wholesale
anarchy,
and laws that set a guideline for what is and isn't acceptable in this
society.
I don't agree with a lot of the laws, but that doesn't mean I want to
through
them all away.
Let's try to put this in relative perspectives .
This started as an almostpoll of values we like or not about OSS. Then thread drift has taken it around the block a bit . But to good cause . It makes us think . Why OSS ? OSS is a realm of self policing . Closed source is a dictatorial Oligarchy . The deconstructing of theocratic nomenclatures can be fun only so far . Then it gets sticky and tends to collect between one's toes if you wear sandals . Good thing It's too cold for sandals .
To make a case for or against a world with police - OSS being consigned to a realm of "intangible common property " Closed Source being "intangible PRIVATE property " And the rest of the world grouped as Tangible chattels of Natural Persons or Corporate Entities . With all "Natural Persons" being in a unique status . Injury to person or diminishment/damage of tangible property is a pure standard for harm . The indeterminate of "information theft" or "non-physical " injury? Not so clear ! Let's go past the simple denoting of the concept that IF a code base is shared freely "theft" or "unauthorized use /distributing" vaporises ! AS does a need for "police" Now if one has a fee for usage model then arguably unpaid use may be theft . Contrast example - Jerry Garcia telling a packed show to start their tape recorders for a new song as opposed to Garth Brooks lobbying congress to outlaw the sale of used CD's as it would have poor Garth sending his kids to GASP- Public School! SO that used cd or a copy is argued to be "harm"
But copying a CD and using force to cause bodily harm hardly deserves comparison .
Back to the much maligned concept of Anarchy .
The textual definition of "anarchy" simply denotes an absence of law . NOT a society of crime or folks needfully doing bad things "because they can " Expounding upon no law thus equating to lawlessness equating to "bad things" is often oxymoronic . For absent law to proscribe an action the concept of it being a "crime" has been mooted . The flat truth is your safety derives from the good will of those around you . Argue the point till man becomes perfect . That unlikely event will render much of society moot in itself . The social contracts of everyday life carry more force than all the coercive police powers in heaven, hell or earth. Laws do define conduct but not control .
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men with guns stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -George Orwell IF you believe man cannot behave civilly unless at gunpoint ? Then ? That quote renders as inevitable a loss of safety absent those men with guns.
Well , in the world of OSS we have largely proved ourselves better than that ! In many situations the consensus called loosely "OSS" truly exists as a meritocracy OSS by mostly consensus bound tools has wrought the alchemy of hardware and software becoming so much *MORE* in human lives than any other facet to date . With Shibboleths that serve as one's "non-rank" in a realm that eschews titles. ALL the other points commonly used to judge or Caste place humans yields to -
Write GOOD code and rise in standing with no regard for most other considerations . "Just show us the code ...." And if you are not a coder, evangelism counts too .
Contrast the waves of exploits among the Closed Source world by TYPE as opposed to those of OSS . WE may wish to learn in places or fashions not strictly "conduct becoming" of OSS ideals . But seldom are the masses of OSS citizens barbarian thugs. Linux for the moment by setting an entry exam of sorts as did Morse Code proficiency for Ham Radio . Then rethink that by review that the majority of Ham Radio offenders DID pass a Morse test and still acted completely execrably . Point being that Shibboleth sadly does not secure conduct .
GPL and Creative Commons are creatures of social admonishment before any "Rule of Law" ever enters considering . Anathema Vs Lawsuits . NDISwrapper issues are an example of conduct by free choice challenging one's rights to freedom being curtailed pre-emptivly "because you could ..." Google for "Palladium" and "trusted computing" to see where legalism ends us !
Oren Beck
-
Brian Densmore -
Oren Beck