Re: [OS:N:] RE: N:] Open Source as a form of Anarcho-Communism?

[Brent Fox <bfox redhat com>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:59:18AM +1000, Paul Fitz wrote:
> YOU SAID: "I think that blanket generalizations such as these are usually a
> shaky
> foundation to build a thesis on.  This is like saying, "All musicians
> reject the theory of relativity."  It's impossible to prove."
> 
> Yep, thats right, at the very least it should read "elements of the open
> source community..."  Just very bad wording (it's not a thesis by the way, I
> couldn't make this idea stick for a thesis LOL :) )

Sure, maybe *some* elements of the open source community feel a
certain way.  That's true of any large community, but it doesn't prove
anything.  Some Americans (like me) prefer soccer over basketball.
What does that say about Americans?  Not much.

If you read the writings of the more well known Open Source/Free
Software people (Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, Eben
Moglen, etc.) I don't think you'll find much to support the
anarcho-communist theory.

> However -
> I stand by the first comment.  As I have indicated in the previous emails, I
> see intellectual property as an extension of lockean property rights - an
> essential individual right.  A rejection of that notion by people in the
> open source community could be seen as a rejection of at least one element
> of liberalist/capitalist philosophy.

Now you may be getting somewhere.  It may be fair to say that many
people in Open Source share a similar view as far as intellectual
property, software patents, and artificial scarcity are concerned.

Is intellectual property an individual right?  Who says so?  What does
it mean to own an idea?

The US Patent Office is so fundamentally flawed that it's not even
funny.  People are being granted patents, not just on the
implementation of a piece of code, but on the actual concepts that the
code covers.  Bio-engineering companies are being awarded speculative
patents on genetic sequences that they aren't even sure what function
they serve.  

Here's an example:  http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227.

This patent was awarded for *sideways swinging*.  If you ever did this
on a swingset as a child, you better send these people a check for
infringing on their intellectual property.  See how silly this is?

You may find that Open Source developers are more aware of these isses
because they so often relate to software.  However, being critical of
intellectual property law and software patents does not mean that one
is anti-capitalism.  It simply means that some of us feel that part of
the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

> By rejection of supply-demand economics I suggest that the Open source
> programmers reject the notion that if there is a high demand for a product,
> they must charge a high price.  That is some pretty basic economic theory
> there.  

There is a high demand for water, yet is cheap because it is
plentiful.  There is a high demand for gold, but it is expensive
because it is scarce.  There is a high demand for software but with
non-open source software, the price is high.  Why?  Is it scarce like
gold?  I say that it is artifically scarce.  Once created, the cost of
copying a digital product is essentially zero yet the user is
prevented from making copies by licenses, copyright law, etc.  Open
Source software removes that artificial scarcity.  Since copies can be
made for free, the supply is plentiful and the price is low.  This
isn't rejection of sppply-demand economics, it's rejection of
artificial scarcity.

Commercial software companies are fighting commoditization.  This is
almost always a losing battle.  Life will be hard for companies whose
business models are based on artificial scarcity.

<snip>

> "The philosophy of anarchism represents the most literal form of
> individualism, as well as collectivism. It is the most extreme opposite of
> what is termed "fascism". It conceives of man as naturally good and just,
> rational in his outlook, cooperative in his relationships with others. "

In my opinion, this is why anarchism and utopianism are flawed
philosophies.  2000 years of recorded history shows us that humans are
quite frequently brutal, unjust, irrational, and uncooperative.
That's not to say that humans don't have the potential for good, but
clearly human nature is not entirely good.  Governments and laws exist
to repress these facets of human nature so that the world can be a
more livable place.

> See any similarities with the open source commuinity?

No, not much.  Sorry.  :)


Cheers,
   Brent