[oclug] Linux kernel development loses BitKeeper

[Stephen M. Webb]

On 07/04/05 21:16, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>
> True capitalism doesn't rely on governments to enforce.  Since patents
> and copyright are being relied upon to uphold that model, that would be
> basically corporate socialism.

Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production (capital == means of 
production).  Since the means of production of thoughts and ideas has only a 
human being as a physical manifestation, certain ethical problems arise as 
would-be capitalists attempt to obtain ownership.  Slavery is considered 
wrong in this day and age, and in the case of the production of new ideas, 
generally counterproductive.

Capitalism is not a successful method of profiting from thoughts and ideas.  
Communism, where all means of production are help in common, and socialism, 
where all means of production are held by The State, are also inadequate and 
inappropriate.

The failure of classic models of a goods economy to apply to the production of 
ideas, like computer software and music, has lead to the current craze of 
attempts to enforce artificial shortage on the supply of goods produced 
through intellectual capital in the hopes that a profit can be realized from 
the exercise of such control.  This is what patents and various other 
controls are currently being used for.  These models hope to manipulate the 
market through central control for the profit of those who can threaten 
others with the most impunity.

An alternative model is being used by people like the Free Software folk (and 
their equivalent in the music scene).  They recognize that, with a zero copy 
cost, imposing a shakedown for the use of "intellectual property" (ie goods 
produced through intellectual capital) is both immoral and unmaintainable.  
Instead, they recognize that value can be found in the buying and selling of 
scarce resources.  In this case, the scarce resource is the use of 
intellectual capital.  Coming up with good ideas (programs, tunes, 
performances, problem solving) is scarce, and worth a good deal.  It's worth 
paying for.  Once the idea has been communicated, or the song sung, or the 
problem fixed, control ends.  No laws can really stop the tune from going 
through your head (I wish), or the repaired system from running, or copies of 
the program from propagating.  Free Software folk recognize that, and 
recognize there is legitimate and decent money to be made in the free market 
from their intellectual capital.

How does this relate to BitKeeper?  Well, McVoy was cashing in on his 
intellectual capital by selling his time to various consumers while giving 
the software for free to others.  Eventually he reached a point where it did 
not benefit him to maintain or support the free version of his software.  He 
has asserted copy rights on his source code (which he has the moral authority 
to do), which means anyone wishing to do so may write and distribute software 
identical to BitKeeper, but if they use his code they've done something 
immoral and he has the right to demand compensation.  BitKeeper was not Free 
Software, and even the FSF asserts their copy rights on their software.

I guess I've rambled enough for now.

--
Stephen M. Webb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tux.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/attachments/20050408/5af50508/attachment.bin