Open Source Values

Wed Jan 26 16:53:27 CST 2005

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20050126/443df77a/attachment-0002.htm