Open Source Values

[Brian Densmore]

-----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