F/OSS is *voluntary*. Government is *coercive*.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Apr 29, 2008 7:32 AM EDT |
The failure of trying to equate any aspect of F/OSS to "government" is that they are fundamentally different. F/OSS is voluntary at its core. Government, by comparison, is defined by the fact that it is coercive. Governance, as pointed out, is a very different thing from Government, and every project, every effort, every endeavor that involves more than one person also has some form of governance. An an-archist is not someone who believes we can do without governance. An an-archist believes that people can accomplish anything through voluntary, rather than coercive, interaction. |
| hkwint Apr 29, 2008 4:33 PM EDT |
GPL is coercive too. Moreover, copyright law - including copyleft - is an intellectual monopoly granted by government. Therefore, current copyleft couldn't exist without government if you'd ask me. If there's a company willing to voluntarily break copyleft than someone has to have the authority to enforce the copyleft. |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2008 6:05 AM EDT |
Hans - No. GPL is not coercive because you can choose not to use GPL software. You subject yourself to its restrictions by choice. Government, however, doesn't need your buy-in to restrict your actions. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 30, 2008 6:34 AM EDT |
There is also no reason that the "copyleft" concept could not have arisen in a purely voluntary environment. It's called a "contract". I release my code under a "contract" that must be agreed to before the code can be downloaded. The "contract" can say exactly what the GPL says, including the fact that if this code is used and passed on, this "contract" must be agreed to by the tributary party, and the next tributary party, and so on. Oh sure, it might be more difficult, but even Microsoft had to create the BSA to enforce their "licenses", having a government did not absolve them of the responsibility (or cost) of doing their own legwork. In an environment without coercive "consumer protection" laws, people would be far more aware of the "licenses" and "contracts" they enter into as well. That's why I think the balance would still come out in favor of voluntary interaction. |
| Sander_Marechal May 05, 2008 12:22 PM EDT |
@Bob: In a purely voluntary environment, who's going to enforce the contract? The GPL works because the bartender has a two-by-four under the bar: copyright. Break the GPL and you face copyright law. Sure, you can change the two-by-four for a baseball bat: replace the force of copyright law by that of contract law and achieve the same effect. But you can't do away with the weapon behind the bar altogether. Copyleft works because it has teeth. |
| dinotrac May 05, 2008 1:05 PM EDT |
Sander - A purely voluntary environment can be enforceable. Why would you think otherwise? If you agree to follow the terms of a license (or contract), what is involuntary about being forced to honor your commitment? You can avoid enforcement b honoring your commitment OR by not making a commitment in the first place. We are talking about voluntary in a grown-up sense here, not about toddlers and tantrums. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 1:31 PM EDT |
Sander, it would be easy enough to specify in the contract that "binding arbitration" will be used, if there isn't already an established standard. Several of the jobs I've had specified private binding arbitration rather than government courts if there is a disagreement between me and the company. Several trysts have been written on the subject of voluntary cooperation, one of my favorite is http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf "Responses to ten objections to anarchy", also available as an audio file: http://mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3 I especially like how Long points out that organized crime flourishes because they specialize in things that are illegal. Take away prohibition, organized crime _loses_ power, rather than gaining because of a more permissive environment. |
| jdixon May 05, 2008 1:43 PM EDT |
> Take away prohibition, organized crime _loses_ power, And monopoly profits. |
| dinotrac May 05, 2008 1:57 PM EDT |
>I especially like how Long points out that organized crime flourishes because they specialize in things that are illegal. Ummm. Yeah, so? I suppose we could follow that logic and eliminate laws, police, etc.. Then there'd be no crime at all. Of course, property wouldn't mean much, either, except to the biggest and strongest. |
| jdixon May 05, 2008 2:17 PM EDT |
> I suppose we could follow that logic and eliminate laws, police, etc.. Dino, if 90% of the laws on the books today were eliminated, comparatively few people would notice. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 3:08 PM EDT |
> if 90% of the laws on the books today were eliminated, comparatively few people would notice. Considering the volumes of "law libraries", a 90% reduction might just bring it down to where someone could, in fact, know the law. No, make that 99%. One of the "nice" things about not having statute law defining everything to the Nth degree is that cases can be decided on the merits of the case itself, rather than on what the various legislatures have ruled. Every time I hear about a judge or jury saying they "didn't have a choice", that they knew the verdict was "unfair", I feel sick. What good is having a trial at all if the conclusion is foregone? |
| dumper4311 May 05, 2008 4:07 PM EDT |
@Bob_R:
>"One of the "nice" things about not having statute law defining everything to the Nth degree is that cases can be decided on the merits of the case itself" Yep, you're absolutely correct. As long as you're willing to assume that all parties involved will act in a rational, fair, and intelligent manner. Further, you're forced to assume that all parties involved share the same definition of rational, fair, and intelligent. Without such fantastic and unattainable conditions, the anarchy you seem to be entertaining is nothing more than social entropy. The system as it is is horribly broken, but anarchy is no better an alternative. A much better solution would be (as you and jdixon have pointed out) a reduction of meaningless and inflexible statutes, and ENFORCEMENT of the laws left on the books. |
| gus3 May 05, 2008 8:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:>"One of the "nice" things about not having statute law defining everything to the Nth degree is that cases can be decided on the merits of the case itself"Exhibit A: SCO. Exhibit B: Microsoft. Exhibit C: The Mafi*AA. etc. etc. etc. |
| dinotrac May 06, 2008 6:24 AM EDT |
gus, dumper, et al... Yup. Ask any lawyer and s/he'll tell you that laws are a terrible tool for most things. Law tends to be a blunt instrument that works best with bright lines. Sometimes we use law because it works well for our purposes. Sometimes we use law because we don't know what else to do. Sometimes we use law because we're just plain stupid. |
| jdixon May 06, 2008 6:40 AM EDT |
> The system as it is is horribly broken, Well, yes and no. The system is working as designed. But that's because the majority of legislators are now former lawyers. A system of laws designed by lawyers is going to require lawyers to interpret and oversee it. I'm not sure the public wouldn't be better served by not allowing lawyers to hold public office. |
| jdixon May 06, 2008 6:43 AM EDT |
> Law tends to be a blunt instrument that works best with bright lines. Yes. It's a shame most people seem to forget this once elected to the legislature. :( The successful enforcement of laws also usually requires the cooperation of the public. Once a legal system becomes so complicated the public cannot understand it, it rapidly begins to lose that cooperation. |
| thenixedreport May 06, 2008 9:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Once a legal system becomes so complicated the public cannot understand it, it rapidly begins to lose that cooperation. Hence why people can be manipulated into believing that FOSS violates various software patents..... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!