An Extreme Justification of Open Source (a Rambling?)

Software source codes should be freely accessible because they are a formulation of science; it is like a scientific formula that anybody can use. Imagine if we are charged for every use of the Pythagorean theorem and that is what Microsoft is doing now for every use of Windows.

It is granted that a theorem is much simpler than an operating system, but that does not entitle an entity as the sole owner of an OS and therefore able to charge people from using it. We can argue that a theorem is also the result of a deep and costly research; That way, the person or the university conducting the research can charge people from using it. However, we do not pay C.A.R Hoare to use quick sort; we do not pay Newton, Joule, Avogadro, or any great scientists or their government to use their laws (although their research may require thick budget); and in a similar sense, we do not pay Linus Torvalds to use the Linux kernel. Instead, those people have got their own reward from the society other than money.

Should corporations then open source all of their source codes, and turn their income on services? Yes, but the situations made that impossible in the hands of human. Stock owners probably would not like the idea of giving up a market monopoly. Employees probably would not like it either. And the government probably would not like their “technical advantage” become accesible to everybody on earth, including other governments.

See that humans are stealing from each other instead of working together for a better future. We ought to remember that (once) we are the very same Homo sapiens, a socializing species; not mindless, individual robots dictated by the economic and political system. Should we wait for the ascent of a common enemy (likely, aliens thirsting for the nature of Earth) in order to rejoice?

13 comments

What if.

What if what you see in Antitrust film is a real happening, that in fact open-sourcers are strongly intimidated by 'them'. 'They' have power and money of course, and it seems that money drives us. In this case, we need universal power against 'them'. Do you think it is easy for 'them' to radically turn open source ? For God's sake it's absurd, except you can persuade people in entire world to boycott 'their' products with that universal power. Most (I think, CMIIW) people are enjoying comfort zone, a zone bounded by 'their' products. Again, 'they' have money and power to develop 'their' products. I am not skeptic. I am sure you (we ?) can. Someday, I am sure open source will go up and rock the world. If so happens, who will buy paid products for 'their' lower quality ?

P.S : Indonesia bought around 35.496 Micro**** license to improve its governmental performance. It took around Rp 377,6 billion (around US$ 42 million). It's an ironic since last year IGOS Project which was run under Research and Technology Ministry reached an accomplishment. Basically, IGOS was planned to be applied in governmental environment. Just imagine, what if that amount were located to develop IGOS ? So silly.... (taken from Aisar's blog http://aisar.wordpress.com/)

We should wait for a better.

We should wait for a better open source then! (Or better yet, make it better.) That way the "level of comfort" of using open source and closed source products will differ less.

As with the MS license, I think it is too intricate - there are interests of a company, a government, and individuals.

PS: did "****" mean "shit" or "suck"? ;)

Some opinions.

If you said that buying those licenses consuming so much money, then I would say that empowering our country to use FOSS is more money consuming.

Anyway, do you know the philosophy behind the Free and Open Source Software?

Free isn't about the price, and open isn't about the code

FOSS.

@Petra : So, what do 'free' and 'open' mean ? I am questioning why Indonesia radically turned to buy a license while they have a successful FOSS Project ?

Clarification : Rp 377.6 billion is for 35496 Micro**** Windows XP licenses and 117.480 Micro**** Office license.

Hmmm… I guess:. Hmmm... I guess: * free => most people say "free as in free speech", which means everybody with proper knowledge always has the right to study it, improve it, discuss it etc., and (in the process) use it. * open => means that everybody with proper knowledge always has the right to join / participate in the project Am I right enough? I don't think FOSS consumes more money than buying the licenses. If the expenditure is about deployment and training, it is actually good because long term, we won't depend on a single company to feed the "deployment" and "training" but instead depend on local companies. It will then lower employment and benefit the economy. Current employees are proficient in those Office programs not because they are the best but because the workplace and the education curricula assume those are the best. PS: please reply for the right comment, comments are threaded! (Click "reply" under the comment you wish to reply)
I don’t think FOSS.

I don’t think FOSS consumes more money than buying the licenses. If the expenditure is about deployment and training, it is actually good because long term, we won’t depend on a single company to feed the “deployment” and “training” but instead depend on local companies. It will then lower employment and benefit the economy.

you were talking in two different timespan

for these few years, financially, buying those license is considerately more feasible.

That is the problem of.

That is the problem of Indonesians, they never think for the longer timespan. But when lawyers of a giant corporation pushed a government, what can someone do?

But thinking more about it, this is no really bad because change takes time. After the government bought the license, they can begin focusing on switching to FOSS. If they hadn't bought it, Microsoft would have pushed even further and broke the government's concentration.

After the government bought.

After the government bought the license, they can begin focusing on switching to FOSS.

Well, why do you think they are still employing FOSS empowering movement while they are using propriatery licenses?
That's because of it, right? ^_^

?

That is the problem of Indonesians, they never think for the longer timespan.

'They' ? ;)

!!! In English posts, we.

!!! In English posts, we sometimes forget our nationality! This is bad!!!

(If this were an English grammar debate, I would argue that "they" refers to the people running the government, not the citizens ;) )

Oh man....

That is the problem of Indonesians, they never think for the longer timespan.

Should I remind you that you had set the perimeter of that sentence, in the first clause ? ;) (Okay, I am sorry for driving it OOT. Stop !! This is irrelevant to the topic !!)

kesimpulannya?

kesimpulannya gimana dong?

Hmmm…. perlu kesimpulan. Hmmm.... perlu kesimpulan yah? This is not a debate, this is a rambling. "Ramble":http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rambling: a walk without a definite route, taken merely for pleasure.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <pre> <i> <b>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Recent comments