is this ignorance or willfulness?
I blogged some quibbles about the Bonyton article in the Times about a week ago. In it I noted (but nothing more) PFF's attack on the movement. That led PFF's James DeLong to send an email to his followers, in which he states:
The [Free Culture Movement] does not think that production and consumption of intellectual creations should be organized by property rights and markets. Instead, it favors a mechanism of production based on the open source software movement, in which software is made available at no charge, and is also freely modifiable by the world at large.
So this is obviously yet another Washington DC non sequitur. For again: "open source software" and free software both are built upon intellectual property (however distasteful that word is to some). So it is plainly "organized by property rights and markets." It is not organized in the way that Microsoft likes to organize at least some of its property. But property owners choosing how to make their property available is obviously at the core of a property system. Why would PFF be against that?
But here's the real question. Do these DC types (a bit of bit-head thinking, I agree, but sometimes it is necessary) really just not read? Or is this willfulness inspired by the belief that their funders don't read?
And Mr. DeLong: If you'd like to debate this in a context where misstatements can be corrected directly, I'd be honored to debate you. Obviously, that would have to be an "open" context, where people were "free" to disagree with you and quote you without your permission. I hope that isn't too communistic for your taste.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (18)
Silly Lessig, obviously these debates should not be settled by communistic facts, available to everyone, but by trademarked slogans controlled by property and markets. If you really want to win the debate, you'll need to get down off your ivory tower notions of "Truth" and start selling slogans and misconceptions that the people truly like, just like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and the other great heroes of modern society.
I mean, let's just look at the numbers. Ayn Rand has sold 1.2B books. You've sold 72. Therefore, Ayn Rand must be right!
aaron swartz, are we looking at the same "facts?"
The [Free Culture Movement] does not think that production and consumption of intellectual creations should be organized by property rights and markets. Instead, it favors a mechanism of production based on the open source software movement, in which software is made available at no charge, and is also freely modifiable by the world at large.
For again: “open source software” and free software both are built upon intellectual property (however distasteful that word is to some). So it is plainly “organized by property rights and markets.”
to borrow a phrase, the mice must ask “is this ignorance or willfulness?”
“markets” refer to places and mechanisms for the buying and selling of goods and services. when something (e.g., Linux) is neither bought nor sold nor any of its creators paid for their labors it is factually incorrect to say that there any “market” mechanism involved in its production, distribution, or consumption.
in the case of F/OSS, intellectual property (i.e., copyright) is used to enforce the exclusion of market forces (via the GPL) by attaching a license to the copyrighted content that it may not be bought or sold - or incorporated into other works which are bought or sold. if we understand it correctly, it is the function of the GPL to disavow private ownership in favor of “communal” ownership.
so it would seem that the claim that F/OSS is organized by property rights and markets is not only non sequitor, it is factually incorrect.
it is no small exercise of irony that the left is embracing private property laws as a means to abolish private ownership of property, but the lager exercise is in duplicity as the left attempts to create the fiction that they believe in markets and private property.
TBM: Of course markets are involved in the development of free and open-source software. (Just for starters, most developers of such software are gainfully employed by businesses who see a profit in developing it.) And of course property rights are involved; it's your ownership of your code that makes it possible for you to give it away.
The only thing absent from the picture with free and open-source software is artificial scarcity.
TBM, what's the magical property of markets that you want Linux to have? The ability of customers to make decisions about which product to use? GNU/Linux has that. The funding of developers based on the popularity of the product? GNU/Linux has that. Being sold on shelves at retail stores? GNU/Linux has that.
True, GNU/Linux is different from a traditional conception of selling software, but what's I think the question should be asked is: What part of a market provides the value, and does Linux provide that value?
TBM: Once again your statements are based on an extremely onsided worldview. That free software is based on property rights are beyond arguing, without property rights the GPL or any other license would be nothing more than flavour text for software in the public domain.
As for it not being a market is also based on some strange view that unless there is actuall cash as part of the transfer there can't be a market. You obviously have never heard of bartering, but it is a form of trade which is based on the exchange of goods directly instead of using money or cash. Still very common in large parts of the world.
Ok, so know that we have the basic theory in place lets move on the a real world situation. You have a programmer/contractor paid by a company to provide some software to solve a specific problem for this company. He/She then has two choices on how to spend the money he got for the job, he can pay a company some cash for their proprietary application and set that up for his/her customer or he can take some GPL'ed software modify it for use by his customer and then 'pay' for that software by returning his/hers improvements to it back. In other words he bartered some of his skills in return for software. Which I think you see constitute a market transaction.
Also take note that there is nothing in the GPL that says you can't sell it, all the GPL says is that when you sell someone the software they have the right to pass it on or resell it, and that they can request a copy of the sourcecode from you in case you didn't include it. Which is how Red Hat is selling their linux package for a good piece of cash even if you can download Debian for 'free'. There is also nothing stopping anyone from paying the copyright holders to let you include their software in your software under another license. This has even been done many times. There is no 'disavowing of ownership', the copyright holders keep their copyrights unless they choose to give it to someone else (like their employeer or the FSF or....).
And to answer the unasked question; yes, there is nothing in the GPL which states that you can automatically take this software and make it your own. But neither is there such terms to be found in the software of Microsoft. You might consider this anti-market and some free market proponents might join you in saying that, but this anti-marketness is then shared by all software, wether under a 'free software' license or under a proprietary license.
As for the left using is embracing private property laws as a means to abolish private ownership of property, this is just a simple attempt by you to brand something you don't understand as something you obviously don't like. I have been a member of Norway's Conservative party for over 15 years now, I read Ayn Rand and I am a regular reader of the Economist. For me being a part of the right is not about smiling when big corporations screw me over, but instead embrace the solutions which creates the most level playingfield on which those with the will and skills to succeed can do so, not simply cheer for the systems which are meant to bolster the established and make it harder for the new entreprenour to get anywhere.
Free Software do not take away the market, it simply changes the rules of the market so that there is a chance for success even if you are not called Microsoft. The fridge might have killed of the market for ice which Norway was a big player in, but it didn't remove 'the market' it just altered the rules of the game and instead created a market where icemakers and not ice where bought and sold.
I would like to concur with Mr. Schaller and add the following:
While I think your presence here is an invaluable couterweight to the prevailing ethic and your commentary is usually almost flamboyantly insightful, I think the above quotation is facially incorrect. Putting aside the fact that the GPL simply doesn't say the copyrighted content can't be bought or sold, companies like Red Hat, Yellow Dog, and IBM (to list only the first three which come to mind) are making the Linux kernel better because of the market forces you claim don't exist.
Additionally, if I invent the newest, coolest computer related gadget and form a corporation to sell it, it might behoove me to write Linux device drivers for it in order to enable my success in the Linux market. Those would be market forces as well.
well, it seems calling the kettle black never makes one popular in the kitchen with the other pots and pans.
of course property rights are involved; it’s your ownership of your code that makes it possible for you to give it away.
Evan, we do not dispute that it is the property right conferred by copyright that enables the creator to give her work away for free. what we do argue is the benefit the copyright owner derives from the philanthropy encouraged by the GPL. our observation is that it is one thing for wealthy individuals to donate their property to public use, but it is another altogether for working class programmers to do the same.
I have been a member of Norway’s Conservative party for over 15 years now, I read Ayn Rand and I am a regular reader of the Economist.
Christian Schaller, as fellow scandinavians we think it is fair to point out that one can easily call oneself a conservative in scandinavia while standing comfortably to the far left of howard dean. party labels, particularly the label “conservative,” do not translate literally across national borders.
the question is who is being screwed by whom? it may warm your objectivist heart that IBM’s embrace of Linux creates competition for Microsoft, but when we consider that IBM does not share one Red Cent of their profits with the programmers who created Linux, we are less inclined to feel so cozy.
Putting aside the fact that the GPL simply doesn’t say the copyrighted content can’t be bought or sold, companies like Red Hat, Yellow Dog, and IBM (to list only the first three which come to mind) are making the Linux kernel better because of the market forces you claim don’t exist.
nudicle, we think you are mistaken. Red Hat and IBM don’t sell Linux, they sell services, support, and systems using the Linux OS…. without compensating the programmers who made their business model possible. we don’t consider this a market, we’re more inclined to call it exploitation.
while we enjoy this semantic banter, let's cut to the chase.
does anyone dispute that the GPL HAS THE EFFECT of creating communal ownership of private property? it seems to us that this is undeniably the case. while individuals retain ownership of their private property, they surrender control of their private property to the community of users as surely as if it were confiscated by the state.
the merits of this are certainly open to discussion, but we think it is disingenuous to base the debate on the illusion that a strong belief in private property rights is the foundation for it.
for those on the left in this debate (norwegian conservatives included), private property is not a goal, it is only a mechanism to enable the dream of communal ownership.
three blind mice
While the community does have access to free software, which is the private property of those who use it, the copyright holders have not surrendered it, but only their monopoly on distribution and further development. "Communal ownership" of the software is granted at the cost of the monopoly. The copyright holders voluntarily destroy their monopoly, but this is a good thing because the monopoly impairs further development.
Can there be ownership without control?
Free software copyright holders retain full control over their copies of the software. Free software is voluntarily given and the state does not receive special treatment. This is important for the support of libertarians.
TBM: The problem is not that you call the kettle black, but that you are confusing it with the kitchen sink.
As for your love of semantic banter, yes I dispute that the GPL creates communal ownership. The GPL only ensures that people who wants to use your code under it has to either abide by the rules it stipulates or pay you to be allowed to use it under other terms. If neither alternative is acceptable they/you are free to get your software elsewhere. While stealing someone else's code and tweaking it is the only form of software development you obviously see possible, there is nothing stopping anyone from writing their own software from scratch without taking premade GPL code. There is also tons of LGPL and BSD licensed code available which you can build an application upon without having to abide by the terms of the GPL for your application.
Also remember the GPL do not apply to the copyright holder him/herself. Ximian for instance shipped a non-opensource Exchange plugin for their Evolution e-mail software even if Evolution is distributed under the GPL.
You seem to be under some impression that when someone develops software it is communism is they are not allowed to freely take the source code available under the GPL and use it in their own application. That you don't even have the source code to take from either Microsoft or Apple software to begin with doesn't seem to enter your mind.
To "three blind mice",
I am somewhat puzzled by your continuing criticism
on GPL or any open license.
In the U.S., when a corporation is created, there
must be at least one stockholder (states have
different requirements on the minimum number of
stockholders) that owns stocks in the corporation.
All of this is based on private ownership which is
rooted in property rights. If the corporation is
very large, the number of stocks is usually very
high, such as many millions of stocks. That means
that many more individuals own varying number of
stocks in the corporation.
According to your comments, the more number of
individuals who own stocks in a corporation, the
closer they are to the communal ownership of
the corporation. People in the U.S. have been
doing this for more than one hundred years
(I think, but I could be wrong, that the concept
of corporation was first materialized in the
late 1800's).
Then, why do you have problem with that?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
TBM said: what we are saying is that when “the open source community” encourages individuals to contribute the results of their labors without compensation and then allows companies like IBM and HP to make billions of dollars of profit from these labors we see this as exploitation of the worker. simple and plain.
Your logic is extremely flawed. First if all you assume that these applications would earn their creators thousand/millions if it where not for them being under the GPL. The truth is more that most of these applications owe much of their success and rapid development to the existance of the GPL and free software. If not for that then 99% of them would most likely never have left their original creators harddisk or have ended up as obscure and unused shareware applications. The open source development process has helped many of these applications reach levels of quality and functionality that they would have never seen if not being released as open source software. So the developers have not lost anything by releasing their software, instead they have often gotten a lot of good patches which has increased their own use and value from the software; in addition to getting some good advertising of their skills.
As for your claim about no compensation I think I covered this with my bartering example earlier on. But to expand on that a little with other examples so are there thousands of developers getting paid to work on free software these days instead of getting the same salary to work on a closed source application. There are thousands of companies around the world making a living of selling support and custom development for free software. I am about to join such a startup myself.
Where among the paid workers, young startups, idealists and students getting valuable experience you find the exploited workers I am not sure, but I guess if you are unhappy about your own life situation you find comfort in believing that others are having a just as bad time.
three blind mice
Exploitation will continue as long as there are capitalist and non-capitalist classes. Until this changes, we may take comfort in the fact that exploitation can be far from the worst situation for workers. People only work for capitalists because they feel that it is worthwhile. That is because they would be worse off not being exploited. Existing free software developers obviously feel that they already have sufficient incentive to code. That is all we must provide them with for them to continue. Market freedom dictates that we need not pay them more than is required for them to provide us with the software writing service.
You seem to be saying that the GPL prohibits commercial use and that IBM is exploiting authors of GPLed software. Have I missunderstood? Exploitation by IBM is evidence that commercial use of GPLed software is possible.
Another class divide is between software developers, or those who have access to the code to have it changed, and others. Free software goes some way to removing this class divide.
Even if proletariat programmers can compete with both the giant proprietary software companies and the open source movement, then they have other tools with which to demand resources. As RMS says, they could work as waiters or mathematics teachers.
Is the difference between X/BSD style licenses and the GPL relevant to your argument, or does your objection apply to all free software? Proponents of proprietary software often particularly dislike the GPL.
Regarding the comment made by Tim Ivorson dated
Feb. 16, 2004 at 4:47am:
It is not quite correct to say that the copyright
holders voluntarily destroy their monopoly on
their works. This is one of the myths or
misunderstandings about GPL and open licenses.
The copyright holders always retain their monopoly.
They just make their monopoly more friendly than
others but it is still monopoly anyway. There is
nothing magic about GPL and open licenses from
the perspective of copyright. These copyright
holders still have their exclusive rights as
granted by the copyright law. These rights do
not magically disappear when their works go
under GPL or open license.
A copyright holder may at one time put his work
under GPL or open license and 20 years later
cancel the license. This is possible because
he still retains monopoly (exclusive rights)
over his work.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
"As for it not being a market is also based on some strange view that unless there is actuall cash as part of the transfer there can’t be a market. You obviously have never heard of bartering, but it is a form of trade which is based on the exchange of goods directly instead of using money or cash. Still very common in large parts of the world."
Christian, how much of free software do you think is created in exchange for some good or service? There are people paid to create it, yes. Now exclude the contributions they are paid for. I think we're still left with a significant amount of software. And I think that software is created without an offer of exchange or reward. Perhaps you mean it is contributed with the knowledge that others may contribute their creations as well. I don't not think this fits the definition of a market. In a market there are discrete transactions.
"Ok, so know that we have the basic theory in place lets move on the a real world situation. You have a programmer/contractor paid by a company to provide some software to solve a specific problem for this company. He/She then has two choices on how to spend the money he got for the job, he can pay a company some cash for their proprietary application and set that up for his/her customer or he can take some GPL’ed software modify it for use by his customer and then ‘pay’ for that software by returning his/hers improvements to it back. In other words he bartered some of his skills in return for software. Which I think you see constitute a market transaction."
This is not bartering. The contractor does not offer anyone his skills or time for the software. The software is already made available and he will be able to use it whether or not he contributes back to it. I very much disagree with your assertion that this is a market transaction.
That argument is all semantics. TBM what about software developers is proletarian (did I use that word right?)? If someone creates some software and sells it for a large amount of money, is this a proletarian victory? I think we're getting into an area where these terms don't well apply. If you want to evaluate the social benefits and costs of F/OSS development, you can't do it in terms of markets and exploitation.
"what we are saying is that when “the open source community” encourages individuals to contribute the results of their labors without compensation and then allows companies like IBM and HP to make billions of dollars of profit from these labors we see this as exploitation of the worker. simple and plain."
This is a nonsense. The software produced by the F/OSS movement is free for all of humanity to use, regardless of their corporate structure and profit motive.
If IBM makes a profit, it is not by selling OSS tools without compensating the authors, it is by supporting that software, employing people who understand it (often the authors themselves, members of the community) and can extend and repair it where neccessary, and then providing the services so created at a price that enables them to pay their workers and make a profit.
IBM makes a profit from Proprietary software in the same manner, without contributing fees to the creators of that software. They are dealing in services and consulting. Their hardware arm supplies hardware that doesn't care if the software is free or not.
The F/OSS developer does not need encouraging - they provide the community with the fruits of their labour out of a desire for a better system - they do it because it is a good and right thing to do. They do this co-operatively, so that the result is better and more featureful and secure etc than a piece of code written by one individual.
Painting the OSS community as a bunch of communists does nothing for your argument. Many religious orders have a structure that looks like communism. If it looks like a duck, is it a duck? The question really is: Does it really look like a duck, or does everything look like a duck? When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail...
Michael
The gentleman that gave Linux most of the network drivers mentioned the "barter" theory. He claimed that, in return for writing network drivers, he received an entire OS to use. Seems like barter to me. What others received from it doesn't matter. He received an entire OS.
What CS hasn't pointed out is another "value add" in F/OSS. His work on GStreamer will make him much more employable. Don't think so?
I've coded C. What would you hire me for?
Linus has coded C. What would pay for him?
How about my friend Frank Nobody?
Alan Cox?
Do you see a pattern?
By the way CS, thanks for your work. I really love having RB running on GStreamer for my CDs. How do I pay for this? I pimp F/OSS everywhere I go. I also save kittens by filing bugs.
TBM:
Although you're correct in asserting that Red Hat Linux and IBM sell services, etc, related to linux, both corporations employ programmers who do get paid for their efforts to contribute code to linux. And not only linux, in fact, bot other open source projects as well (I think specifically of Red Hat's interest in and purchase of the team responsible for libstdc++ for GCC and their internal kernel dev team). While my first post did gloss that, it's still true.