[Dclug] Open Source vs Free Software

[Dean Landolt]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Johnson, Steve (NIH/OD/ORS) [E] <
johnsons at vrp.ncrr.nih.gov> wrote:

>  >> ...wrote to RMS...call it Freedom Software
> >>  It's a bit hokey, isn't it? But then again, America thrives on hokum.
>
> Now, now.  There is a germ of truth in the RMS message, especially as he
> originally propounded it.
> Any "History of Economic Thought" that I have ever seen has early on
> mention and some discussion of the "commons".
> (see online encyclopedia article for authoritative definition.)
> The commons was common grazing ground for villager's cattle, and there was
> legal status or regulation involved.
> Who knows, might have evolved some common law.
> Significantly, there was undoubtably a sense of community involved (a la
> the sociologists).
> Your chance to turn the notion of property (and the powdered wigs) on its
> head.
> But as the textbooks say (big surprise) there were problems and the
> solution only led so far, beyond which
> you needed to accept an orthodoxy, a set of initial assumptions.
> Parenthetically, reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded the LISP
> compiler, favorite of RMS and erstwhile favorite the MIT crowd.
> Of vast potential (Turing complete, complete computability) the LISP
> compiler offers relatively
> transparent logic - there is so little (like the hardware, IO, networking,
> timing, ie semantics) locked down.
> The LISP compiler attains real usefulness in theoretical studies or proofs
> in programming language type theory.
> Why RMS was able to salvage this sense of community I don't know.
> The "commons" is in one sense hokey, in that the textbooks are using a
> late 18th century example,
> which has the advantage of being close to the modern reader's experience.
> Scholarly discussion of Plato and Aristotle's politics shows that in the
> ancient
> world this question is large and significant.  They were forceful players
> back then.
> So my serious opinion is that the Free and Open Source Software are the
> paradigm
> to examine for decisions about property law.  That to skip the software
> is to try to over leap the technology of modern mercantile practice.
> If nothing else, it is a question that requires finesse.
>

You aren't really implying there is even the slightest connection between
software and grazing land, are you? Between scarce and infinite goods?
Between real and imaginary property?

Apples and oranges.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/dclug/attachments/20080922/395b7c1a/attachment-0002.html