The Right to be a Charitable Community

Post #2,193 by brettj 7/18/01 10:33:19 AM Reply	The Right to be a Charitable Community Paul, of LinuxToday fame, has a few good points to make, not the least of which is the subject of greed. This is a fairly lenghty commentary so you might want to make sure you have some time available before you start reading. [link\|http://www.varlinux.org/article.php?sid=294&mode=nested&order=0\|Free Software: The Right to be a Charitable Community (Paul Ferris)] While Microsoft debates the issues surrounding the GPL from a monopolists perspective, an important point seems to be missing completely from the entire argument. Though laughable to those of us involved in the Open Source community, Microsoft's anti-GPL arguments are dangerous because they seem digestable to corporate America. The ground isn't anywhere near as shaky as Microsoft would have Americans (or the rest of the world for that matter) believe. They have gone out of their way to paint the situation with Red White and Blue (and Green) colors and hint at the validity of the corporate model in terms of developing software. The real issue is more direct, and often missed in the argument over the GPL vs a BSD-style license as advocated by Microsoft: Am I allowed to make something and give it away without the threat of someone exploiting my work? Is a "community" allowed to be charitable without having their charity abused? Can a group of people collaborate and create "Intellectual Property", put it under a license that insures that it can be shared with anybody? Is this legal? Does it have precedent in America (any country for that matter)? While Microsoft debates the issues surrounding the GPL from a monopolists perspective, an important point seems to be missing completely from the entire argument. Though laughable to those of us involved in the Open Source community, Microsoft's anti-GPL arguments are dangerous because they seem digestable to corporate America. The ground isn't anywhere near as shaky as Microsoft would have Americans (or the rest of the world for that matter) believe. They have gone out of their way to paint the situation with Red White and Blue (and Green) colors and hint at the validity of the corporate model in terms of developing software. The real issue is more direct, and often missed in the argument over the GPL vs a BSD-style license as advocated by Microsoft: Am I allowed to make something and give it away without the threat of someone exploiting my work? Is a "community" allowed to be charitable without having their charity abused? Can a group of people collaborate and create "Intellectual Property", put it under a license that insures that it can be shared with anybody? Is this legal? Does it have precedent in America (any country for that matter)?
Post #2,205 by boxley 7/18/01 12:32:51 PM Reply	the US constitution is such a work put together by many as an intellectual document that can be freely disseminated. thanx, bill can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,389 by brettj 7/19/01 8:30:49 PM Reply	Re: the US constitution is an early example of Open-Source? There are some striking parallels, now that you mention it. ("
Post #2,392 by a6l6e6x 7/19/01 8:44:45 PM Reply	I must admire your "non-linear" thinking here, Bill! Jumping from software to a legal document because of the commonality of process of collaborative creation is insightful. The collaborative process is not that revolutionary (or communist) after all. Alex
Post #2,404 by Ashton 7/19/01 10:10:49 PM Reply	Nice parallels with the Founding Mothers' task - As has been hashed over elsewhere (and since the beginning of U.S.) - the topic ever devolves to - that of 'strict construction'(ists) VS strict construction on quite another another scale: that the authors of all our formative documents not merely understood that they could not anticipate future events: they explicity told us that this was in their minds! - we would Have to expand, not contract from ore freeze their ideas. Living documents! (Which fact alone - throws many a monkeywrench into the faces of the real reactionaries - those who will insist upon seeing the words as carved in stone and will deny that there was passion behind them!) How often is skipped-over.. that phrase, indicating that powers not explicitly delegated - reside in the people. I believe that the ingredient is 'heart' - that quality, sweet and undefinable.. like the pineapple. But it isn't important to find an exact word to describe ~ an open-ended set of ideas not meant to be taken as an exact recipe: we already know enough of human nature to realize that those with an ox to gore shall ever bend towards strict/loose as serves private aims. Some believe that no Corporation can afford to demonstrate 'heart' - that its constituents with all those stock certificates would wish absolute quickest profit, placed above all other considerations. (At least that is the final excuse of the terminally greedy ruling group, as cross-polinate each other across many Corp boards). M$ is merely giving the utter extreme view, and of Billy n'Bally - who could expect the slightest hint of their imagining that more is involved? Could you explain a pineapple to someone who'd never smelled or eaten one? Or 'explain' the concept of 'others' to a 2-year old? I see the GPL as a fascinating set of ideas, quite elegantly tailored to survive in a country where lawyers outnumber engineers 10:1 and where the most naive ideas of what 'capitalism' might mean - are taken to their expected extremes by the mentally lazy and emotionally stunted. Paradoxically the GPL has had to try to explicitly state very much which would be unnecessary, were we a more mature bunch: merely to try to accomplish what you suggest, an idea of cooperation, coexisting within an entirely self-serving and literal majority! That is why it's a tough read.. but all the prose needs to be there, as bulwark against the reactionary and greed-besotted. (Almost as neat a hat trick as the Founding Mothers, IMO.) A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!