Open Source as a Perpetual Motion Machine

by Tim Lee on August 9, 2006 · View Comments

Over at the IPCentral blog, I had a lengthy and cordial discussion with Noel Le about the supposed contradiction between the rhetoric of open source and the support open source software receives from corporations. I started my first comment with “I don’t think I understand this critique,” and I’m still confused.

I won’t re-hash that debate, which you’re welcome to read for yourself if you’re interested, but I wanted to comment on the hostile attitude that some libertarian intellectuals seem to have toward open source software. Even libertarian luminaries like Richard Epstein have criticized open source software as “unsustainable,” and insinuated that they succeed only due to the largess of billion dollar software companies. Epstein seems to think that the open source movement is living on borrowed time, and once the folks subsidizing it (the government, tax-funded universities, IBM, the developers themselves, whoever) get tired of all the free riding, the party will come to a halt.

For anyone who’s actually used open source software, or who knows open source programmers, this critique doesn’t ring true. Most open source projects exist and thrive for years before corporations started taking notice of it, and only a small fraction of open source programmers are lucky enough to have employers who pay them to do it full time. Corporate support is obviously beneficial to open source efforts, but they would get along just fine without them.

Indeed, it seems to me that if you want to understand what drives open source software, the logical thing to do is to ask the people who are creating it. Their motivations haven’t exactly been a closely guarded secret. Open source programmers say they do what they do because they enjoy the intellectual challenge, because it helps them develop valuable skills, and because they enjoy impressing the community of their peers. So why don’t libertarians like Le and Epstein take them at their word?


I think the reason is that one of the recurrent themes of libertarianism is a suspicion of claims that things are “free,” based on the fact that “free” usually means “subsidized by the taxpayer.” “Free” health care, “free” education, “free” day care, “free” condoms, etc, are typically not, in fact, free, but are funded by taxes taken coercively from other Americans.

Closely related to our suspicion of “free” things is our general enthusiasm for commercial activities. For the most part, 20th-Century goods and services, which had non-trivial marginal costs, could be produced one of two ways: through government support or through private enterprise. Since those were almost always the only two options for the production of tangible goods, many libertarians came to see their opposition to government-provided services and their enthusiasm for commercially-produced products as two sides of the same coin.

In our discussion, Noel kept returning to the fact that open source software needed to have a “business model,” as though there was a problem with a software project that wasn’t primarily oriented toward turning a profit. But nothing about libertarian philosophy says that free enterprise is the best way to organize all productive activities. We view markets and private property as means to the more fundamental ends of liberty and prosperity, and as an alternative to organizing production through the coercive methods of the state.

We have no reason to quarrel with other private, non-coercive institutions–such as churches, families, or private universities–that achieve social cooperation without resorting to coercive methods. It would be absurd to object to the existence of families or churches on the grounds that such institutions lack a “business model.” Business models aren’t the point of those institutions, and no one participating in them expects to turn a profit from them. Precisely the same considerations apply to free software: although many individuals might find ways to profit from their participation in open source software (just as many people find valuable business contacts at church), that’s not why most open source projects were created, and there’s nothing wrong with that!

Another example of the same phenomenon is this blog. None of us are paid to blog at TLF, and none of us (I hope) ever expect to become millionaires from the TLF IPO. Yet we generate gobs of content and give it away for free. Why? Because the indirect benefits we get from our participation is sufficient compensation. Personally, I think it’s great fun to have a few hundred smart people read what I write. And it also helps to raise my profile as a policy expert, which can improve my job prospects in the future. Given that any given post doesn’t cost me very much to produce each post, that’s sufficient compensation to make it worth my while to continue blogging.

There’s nothing mysterious, contradictory, or left-wing about people who give away blog content for free. And for precisely the same reasons, there’s nothing mysterious about programmers who give their software away for free. They (or, in the case of the few programmers who get paid to do it full time, their employers) have found that the indirect benefits of being open source software developers exceed the costs of doing so.

Le, Epstein, and company seem to treat open source software the way a physicist treats a new perpetual motion machine. They stare at it suspiciously, trying to figure out what the trick is. They know that a free lunch is impossible, so they feel compelled to come up with alternative explanations for how the apparently free lunch got there. Maybe big corporations are subsidizing it. Maybe tax-funded universities are footing the bill. Maybe open source developers were tricked into contributing by corporate propaganda.

But unlike the laws of physics, the laws of economics actually do allow free lunches–especially for intangible goods that can be reproduced at close to zero marginal cost. Open source software, like the posts on this blog, really are free. There’s no mystery here calling for an explanation, only a misunderstanding of libertarian theory.

View Comments Posted in: Open Source, Open Standards & Peer Production

  • No. We are way past. Evidence: a firm producing a superior product with one percent of the labor of its competitor in a field with high barriers to entry.


    If that's not creative destruction, then what is?


    Oh, and the superior product is available for Free, as in Beer.....

  • Noel Le
    Enigma, there is budding potential for "creative destruction" with OSS. I eagerly await when it actually materializes in the market, rather than exist as an abstract hypothesis. Do you disagree? Would you say we`re seeing the process unfold, are we approaching the "tipping point" or has the event passed with muted enthusiasm and negligable market impact? I`d say its in the premature stages.
  • Noel:


    Your post is really non-responsive. Let me explain further items that I thought would occur to you. The TCO is a very small part of my overall point.


    Compare two Companies: Microsoft and SuSE. (I understand that SuSE is now a division of Novell, but that's a tangent here to my point) SuSE (Or the SuSE divison of Novell, if you prefer) has about 400 employees that produce SLED and SLES, their workstation and server Operating Systems.


    Microsoft however has about 61,000 employees, and reportedly about 41,000 are involved on the development of Windows Workstation and Server.


    When a company can compete in an R&D; intensive field, dramatically lowering the barriers to entry, and produce a better product with about 1% of the work force of its competitor, I have to ask:


    If that isn't Creative Destruction than what is?


    ...the powerful lever that in the long run expands output and brings down prices is in any case made of other stuff.


    Yes, made of other stuff

  • Eniga, you raise the standard TCO scenario.

    TCO *was* a much debated issue, and having spent some time on it I'll say there's no clear determinations of systems costs over the long run. You're looking at higher upfront costs (proprietary) compared to sustaining costs (open source). There might be differences that depend on what part of the system you use open source v proprietary technologies for. Without clear indication of total cost of ownership advantage, or other benefits to increase/offset costs considerations, your pharma company doesn't approach Schumpeterian Creative Destruction for proprietary software or the scenario you describe as: ***the rest of the economy has figured out a way to reduce the price of something to very close to its marginal cost of production.***
  • Those are some good posts guys. I'll respond, after cleaning off my desk a bit more...

    ***It is important for open source skeptics to realize that most of the anti-business rhetoric eminates from the "free software movement."***

    Mike, here's where a lot of fundemental misunderstanding takes place. The fact that you say "it is important for... skeptics to realize" indicates that you admit the potential confusion on open source.

    I write about some of the "rhetoric" here:
    http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/bad_open_source.html
    http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/07/why_would_all_s.html

    Given that even Mike admits open source is abstract, and Tim states its an analogy, I do find it important to define at least a baseline of terms when discussing open source. I write of this here
    http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/open_innovation.html
    http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/06/intellectual_pr_1.html
  • In the interests of setting Noel straight once and for all, I wrote up a blog post that lays out what open source software is in simple terms.
  • Neel Krishnaswami makes some very good points, and I won't repeat them but I'd like to add to this train of thought.


    If I am a large pharma (or even if I am a small pharma) company, I use lots of software. The software is a means of producing my primary product, not an end. If I spend money on this software, it takes away from my bottom line. What's worse, if it's closed source, distributed in binary only format, I can't change it to make it better. Recall that I have a lot of very smart people who would like to make those changes, and many of them are very well-paid and are also seeking the esteem of their peers. So, doesn't it make a better business sense for me to use FOSS, donate some back to the community, because I know that I can get better software and at a lower cost. So there is a business model for using FOSS. The same business model applies to all users of software more or less. Noel Please respond to this.


    There is only one catagory of that doesn't like this development: software companies, that sell shrink-wrap software.


    The fact is: the rest of the economy has figured out a way to reduce the price of something to very close to its marginal cost of production.


    This is in fact the death knell for shrink-wrap software, but so what?


    The rest of the economy will benefit, with companies not having to pay for software. Sounds to me like the classic example of a Schumpeterian Creative Destruction, to wit:


    The first thing to go is the traditional conception of the modus operandi of competition. Economists are at long last emerging from the stage in which price competition was all they saw. As soon as quality competition and sales effort are admitted into the sacred precincts of theory, the price variable is ousted from its dominant position. However, it is still competition within a rigid pattern of invariant conditions, methods of production and forms of industrial organization in particular, that practically monopolizes attention. But in capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not that kind of competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization (the largest-scale unit of control for instance)-competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives. This kind of competition is as much more effective than the other as a bombardment is in comparison with forcing a door, and so much more important that it becomes a matter of comparative indifference whether competition in the ordinary sense functions more or less promptly; the powerful lever that in the long run expands output and brings down prices is in any case made of other stuff.

  • Neel Krishnaswami

    The business model for open source is incredibly simple: reduce the cost of goods complementary to your business's products.

    So, if you run a business, you produce some goods and services, which you sell, and hopefully turn a profit on. These goods exist in a larger market, and are substitutes for some other products, and complements for some others.

    Now, recall the definition of a "complement good". A complement X for a good Y is one for which buying more of X will *increase* the amount of Y bought -- think french fries and ketchup. If I buy french fries, I'll also want to buy ketchup to put on them.

    A company like IBM makes most of its money on consulting services for other corporations, and from selling hardware. For them, software (like operating systems, web servers, and Java compilers) are complements -- if this stuff is free then people will be more willing to buy integration services from them, and hardware to run that software on.

    And since software has a close-to-zero cost of reproduction, they can pay the fixed cost of development and send the price of software complements to zero for ALL their customers. That's often going to be a no-brainer from a business perspective. (The reason for open source rather than "give away proprietary for zero price" has to do with path-dependency, which I'll skip to keep this post short.)

    Next, consider that there are hundreds of thousands of firms in the market, and for every single one of them someone else's software is a complement....

  • Noel, the only people creating a political angle are public policy types, of only ideology or another. As to the issue of being condemned by those who support your views, as a public policy person, I don't think you should be throwing mud considering you are at best attempt to do "the Lord's work in Satan's city."


    All that the moderates, and we are many, ask is that you policy and law-making types leave us alone. That's it. You are fighting something that is simultaneously a hobby and a profession because it is so abstract. Do you now see how ludicrous it is? You are making policy against hobbyists because you want to promote business.

  • ***resemble an adolescent seeking identity***

    See Doug's comments. Is that the kind of support you want for your writings Tim?

    I haven't followed the MA situation closely enough to comment on it, but Mike's view of the MA state govt as a market consumer would lend support to the file format initiative. I'd be more intersted in how the initiative will affect the way MA trades records with other states and the federal govt, and whether that will have policy implications or draw similar initiatives elsewhere.

    I don't have a hard time grasping open source although some of the analogies Tim cites are amorphous. Mike speaks in more comprehensible terms.

    I see potential in open source, but look on it mainly as a perhipheral strategy that can sustain a company when a strictly proprietary model meets limitations, or as one in hybrid with proprietary technology. Mike sees it more as a development process or activity. Tim seems to take an electic approach putting it into no single paradigm, while attempting to discard the political dimensions. Tim draws different perspectives to his blogs, some more serious and steady than others. Yet I find a lot of blanket opposition to the proprietary industry under blog title terms like monopoly, rent seeking, perpetual motion machine- which are highly suggestive.

    You might cite AOL, Apple or other companies as being interesting examples of hybrid strategies. IBM is probably the better one to watch.

    ***What you and DeLong don't get is that for many developers, the thrill of taking down a big company with an open source project...***

    Well, first of all, I only speak for myself. But regarding your comment, here's where we depart. Of course having a small company beat a big company is interesting. The competitive advantage of the small company is usually something the big guy never sees despite mass amounts of investments in strategy, planning and development. The small company did something right, by introducing something new and innovative, by outsmarting the incumbant. But I wouldn't frame the concept simply in terms of open source vs big companies, it happens on a broader scale. Its just doing better business.

    People have different perspectives, and gather information from different sources. A programmer will hold views separate from an economist or lawyer. Knowing that most of you are open source supporters, rather than make definite points, I tried to draw out the issues by speaking of different kinds of Libertarians, replying line-line to posts, and asking folks to clarify their views, etc (only to get some random comment about AOL).
  • Another thing that puzzles me is the hostility that groups like the PFF have toward the ODF mandate in Massachussets. Why is it wrong for a customer to mandate certain standards? "Let the market decide?" Rubbish. The government is the client and as a contractor, they have to give the client what it wants.
  • Mike, I think the fact that they're just tools is a very important point. It's difficult for non-programmers to graft the notion that most programmers' opinions about open source have nothing to do with politics, per se. They like open source tools because they've found that open source tools work well. If you've never used any of the tools in question, that rationale is totally opaque, so it's easier to analyze other motivations (such as anti-corporate or anti-market attitudes) that are only important to the small minority of the open source community that's interested in making open source a political movement.

    If you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And if your are of expertise is explaining politics, you're going to be inclined to explain every argument in political terms, even if the participants themselves don't see it that way.

  • And another thing, are you an adolescent seeking identity? Your blog sure does use a lot of open source software.


    I must be an adolescent seeking identity because I regularly use PHP for web-based tasks and I love Python. Maybe I'm barely pushing on puberty because I'm posting this from Firefox, use OpenOffice at home (MS Office ain't worth $500 to me no matter what else is on the market) and have XAMPP on my home laptop.


    You can't make snarky comments like that without just stepping into it big time.


    What you and DeLong don't get is that for many developers, the thrill of taking down a big company with an open source project comes in the same spirit as seeing an indie sci fi movie knock Star Wars down a peg. It's not ideological, it's just good fun and quite frankly, knowing how bad a lot of OSS code is, if it happens, they deserve to lose.

  • Noel, might I make a modest question for you? If you have such a hard time grasping the definition of open source software, are you really someone who should be making policy proposals about it?


    If Tim doesn't understand your point, it's probably because you haven't made a coherent one yet. I see a lot of asking for definitions, but not a lot of actual desire to understand beyond satisfying your seeming a priori hatred of non-business-oriented development.


    As I have said before, if you see it as a divide between OSS and commercial business, you have just demonstrated that you don't get it yet. How do you explain companies like Apple that build half of their platform on OSS or companies like Id that use it to build games outside of Windows? They're just tools, Noel. Most programmers get that, and most OSS zealots are neither sysadmins nor decent coders in my experience.


    Look, I'm trying to not like my "inner Rat" (think Pearls Before Swine) take over, but you're making it very hard. What we want, Noel, is to be left alone and to be able to tinker, share our toys and be unmolested by multi-national corporations and the government. The essence of open source software is closer to anarchism than socialism.

  • Noel, I'm still confused. From what exactly was I trying to separate myself? How do my views "resemble an adolescent seeking identity?" And how does any of that relate to my original post?
  • Now thats ridiculously uncalled for. But hey, if thats how you support Tim and your positions, stick with it.
  • Doug Lay
    Noel behaves as a semi-coherent attack monkey - throwing feces against a whiteboard labeled "open source." Maybe something will stick, pleasing the monkey's boss DeLong. Of maybe someone will spend time cleaning up the feces and trying to train the monkey, diverting attention from more worthwhile pursuits.

    I recommend a reverse Gandhi strategy here.

    First you fight the monkey.
    Then you laugh at the monkey.
    Then you ignore the monkey.
    Then the monkey loses.
  • It surprises me that you state you don't know my point, and then you address it.

    Good to see we've gone from open source as "on par" with other business models to it being an "alternative."
  • Thus, far, you've made open source an amorphous movement made in opposition to various established industries, business models, innovation models and perhaps even particular companies. You define yourself by what you try to separate yourself from. After raising the issue of defining open source, we've seen at least several different views raised on this and another thread on TLF. I wouldn't disagree with any of these views on open source, only that on whole and taken together, they resemble an adolescent seeking identity.

    What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I never said I was opposed to "various established industries, business models, innovation models and perhaps even particular companies." Can you quote the particular place where I said that?

    Obviously, open source is an alternative to particular business and innovation models, but the fact that I'm pro-open source doesn't mean that I'm necessarily opposed to other business models.
  • Well, reading your statement that way was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I know Tim isn't an academic. Still, software engineers that write for think tanks can still define terms they use dozens of times during the day.
  • Doug Lay
    Noel:

    *Tim* is not really an academic. Your difficulty with ambiguity strikes again! I'm starting to suspect you're really an AI!!
  • ***The academic process, for example, shares with open source processes the tendency to reward high achievers with status rather than monetary compensation. But no one thinks that academia is literally "open source scholarship." We're making analogies to help illuminate the concept***

    Precisely my point. An analogy is a generalized definition, and benefits from the flexibility of being "in reference to" rather than "it is." Analogies for things like open source are also parasitic to the extent that they absorb characteristics rather than presenting them- hence my argument that your views on "open source" are really only based on what might help the concept of open source. Thus, far, you've made open source an amorphous movement made in opposition to various established industries, business models, innovation models and perhaps even particular companies. You define yourself by what you try to separate yourself from. After raising the issue of defining open source, we've seen at least several different views raised on this and another thread on TLF. I wouldn't disagree with any of these views on open source, only that on whole and taken together, they resemble an adolescent seeking identity.

    I don't agree with everything Professor Epstein writes, but to say he's not really an academic... can you explain that further?
  • Doug Lay
    Yeah, a few months at the FCC and Dairy Queen would probably start looking pretty good.
  • Doug: I'm flattered, but I don't hate myself that much!
  • Doug Lay
    "If you think Epstein is overrated, I'd be scared to know what other academics you'd put in any kind of responsible policy positions."

    Here's one for you, though he's not really an academic:

    Timothy B. Lee for FCC Commissioner!!
  • Tim
    Noel:

    I think you're missing the distinction between a definition and an analogy. The definition of open source is very simple: it's a software project in which the source code is freely available to end users, who are free to modify and redistribute it. I think that's a very clear and straightforward definition, and I don't understand why you're having difficulty with it.

    Now, there are lots of things that are like open source software in various important respects. The academic process, for example, shares with open source processes the tendency to reward high achievers with status rather than monetary compensation. But no one thinks that academia is literally "open source scholarship." We're making analogies to help illuminate the concept.
  • This "obsession" with meaning of terms is important for understanding something new like open source. If you're going to argue its been around for centuries, and draw everything from Bill Gates' donation to worldwide charities, Thomas Jefferson, cold war DARPA researchers, AOL giving away free content, etc, etc open source, then what is it that open source advocates really support. Heck, I'd say that Microsoft giving away its Internet Explorer for free is open source under some definitions I've seen.

    Its a bit different that asking what "is the meaning of is." If it seems circular, no problem. I'll count the number of ways in which open source is defined within the next big thread, other than that its simply a resentment towards successful companies and those that won't let you do what ever you want with their products.

    If you think Epstein is overrated, I'd be scared to know what other academics you'd put in any kind of responsible policy positions.
  • Doug Lay
    Good post, but I don't understand all the hoopla about definitions. Who is and isn't a real libertarian? What qualifies as open source? Noel even asks "sustainable in what sense" in another thread. (What's next - asking what "is" is?) All this obsession with the meanings of terms is a recipe for circular, boring arguments.

    I think Epstein is wrong, and incredibly overrated, because he argues for bad policy choices (DMCA, widespread patenting of software). Truly, I could care less whether he is defined as a libertarian or not. As for Noel, I have no idea what he/she is arguing for, beyond a general resentment of open source software advocates.
  • In our discussion, Noel kept returning to the fact that open source software needed to have a "business model," as though there was a problem with a software project that wasn't primarily oriented toward turning a profit.


    An interesting point. I should like very much to challenge Noel on this. First, I assume Noel means a 'for profit' business model. What's wrong with something having an not for profit business model?


    The NFP sector as of 1997 was the third largest contributor to the GDP, contributing $349 billion to the U.S. economy, dwarfing the $85 billion contributed by the motor vehicle parts and manufacturing sector. The NFP/NGO sector employs 1 in 15 of employed Americans. This sector has grown at an average annual rate of 5.1% from 1993 to 1998, beating GDP growth which was 3.1% annually.


    Sources cited in: Lowell, Stephanie; Silverman, Les & Taliento, Lynn. "Not-for-profit Management: The gift that keeps on giving." The McKinsey Quarterly 2001. No. 1. pg. 147.


  • Super-excellent post, because it lays bare the contradictions between those who claim to be libertarians, and those who actually believe in libertarian principles. (I don't claim to be either, but this is my observation)


    In particular, you note "I wanted to comment on the hostile attitude that some libertarian intellectuals seem to have toward open source software. Even libertarian luminaries like Richard Epstein have criticized open source software as "unsustainable," and insinuated that they succeed only due to the largess of billion dollar software companies."


    My response to this is that Libertarianism has backslide, and now only favors those freedoms that improve the ability of large corporations to concentrate wealth. Any other freedoms, that could, for example, lead to deconcentration of wealth, such as FOSS, are vilified (see IP Central for that) Thus their positions on tort reform limiting the rights of individuals to obtain judgments against large corporations. So present day Libertarians are just about tilting the economy, so that everything falls (surprise, surprise) into one large plate, after only those freedom which allow wealth to be concentrated are systematically expanded.


    The real problem with this new thread of Libertarian thought is that it puts individual liberty at a low priority, and puts the liberty of autonomous economic entities (e.g., corporations) on a very high pedestal. The thought never occurs to them that one may be a threat to the other.

  • It's late, but I have a simple take on this point:



    What do you consider Libertarianism in the context of innovation policy? I view Libertarianism as empowering individuals and private entities, which in the long run will produce the most sustainable technological innovation. I support policies that enable the private sector, such as copyrights and patents.

    I support a quasi-anarchist approach to capitalism. I believe that the role of the state should be to create a border around the vacuum, not try to sell matter with which to fill the vacuum. With patents, for example, I think that only the specific product should be protected. Toyota's Prius engine, not the ideas behind it. If Honda comes along and builds on their engine in a way that is sufficiently beyond Toyota's work, I think the state should be laissez faire toward Toyota and Honda. Copyrights, well, I think they should be regulated and conformed to the societal norms of physical property (no invisible contracts, straight ownership of a copy merely with no redistribution rights).


    To me, and many other small l libertarians, in non-public policy fields, libertarianism means a vacuum. It means a policy of generally not having a policy. A lot of us, probably most of us, would prefer a natural IP regime to emerge a la English Common Law that conforms to the culture, not theoretical models based on academic capitalism.

  • Jim, I'm sorry to say I find your response equally confusing. And I read it twice.

    In your comment you make no mention of "open source." I'm curious, whats your view besides that fact that its another mode of production. And how is AOL relevant. Because its free, open, shared? Thats the point I'm trying to make with Tim? How do you define open source?

    Personally, I used AOL a while ago. I view their recent move as a means of salvaging any remaining business model given their consumer base. But lets see if this new approach of is profitable or sustainable before rejoicing over the simple fact thats its "open."
  • Jim Harper
    Tim, I enjoyed reading your piece. I'm sorry to say I found Noel's response confusing. But I'm sure glad you're talking!

    I think the people who are so leery of open source because of some proponents' politics are missing the forest because of one tree. And that's too bad. It's causing them to overlook entire modes of Information Age production.

    There was a NewsHour piece on AOL's downfall the other week that revealed well how different Information Age production is. This is Kara Swisher, Technology Writer for the Wall Street Journal:

    I think a lot of what AOL was doing was keeping people within. They wouldn't share instant messaging. They wouldn't allow you to move your e-mail around. You know, consumers after a while don't like to be kept and sort of told what to do. Right now on the Internet the biggest trend is social networking where the user is in charge and the user is even creating content. And I think the companies of the future are the ones that are most open, at least in the Internet space, the ones that allow openness and sharing, that allow an ecosystem of sorts where they don't have to capture customers and hold on to them for dear life.
    The successful Information Age business builds an ecosystem and captures the energy of communities. It's razor thin and highly subject to competition. I have a hard time seeing what's wrong with that. In fact, I think it's really good.

  • I also appreciate enterprise, the freedom it provides, and the societal means to enterprise. I'm not the wealthiest individual (someone tip me off on any prospective TLF IPO) but coming from a developing nation I see enterprise as synonymous with virtue, talent and education.

    I agree, and I never said otherwise.

    By "open source efforts" I meant projects like Apache, Linux, Perl, MySQL, Gnome, etc. Corporate contributions obviously speed those efforts along, but they would get along just fine without corporate support, as they did in their formative years.

    Not to be rude, but all this working for free, code as a means to liberty, suggests that you liken the industries to TS Elliot's Wasteland.

    I said nothing of the sort. The fact that non-commercial open source efforts contribute to the creation of wealth in no way implies that commercial software development efforts do not.
  • First off, all of you readers. What do you consider Libertarianism in the context of innovation policy? I view Libertarianism as empowering individuals and private entities, which in the long run will produce the most sustainable technological innovation. I support policies that enable the private sector, such as copyrights and patents. I differentiate antitrust policy as such an "enabling" policy, as its more of something "imposed" by government regulators (although theoretically it enables consumers to gain more selection of goods at better prices). I also appreciate enterprise, the freedom it provides, and the societal means to enterprise. I'm not the wealthiest individual (someone tip me off on any prospective TLF IPO) but coming from a developing nation I see enterprise as synonymous with virtue, talent and education. I hold in high regard those I've worked with in the technology industry who help drive the foremost innovating economy. Hence, somewhere in there, Tim and I differ on "Libertarianism."

    Tim: "Corporate support is obviously beneficial to open source efforts, but they would get along just fine without them."

    Noel: Do you mean commercial open source efforts, or simply working on code? I'm still baffled on how you define "open source." To say that "open source" is sustainable without corporate money, OK, but sustainable in what sense. That it will continue, will it create innovative products, come up with new programs, improve on existing code, that there will always be volunteer programmers organized around SourceForge?

    Tim:"I think the reason is that one of the recurrent themes of libertarianism is a suspicion of claims that things are "free,"...not, in fact, free, but are funded by taxes taken coercively from other Americans."

    Noel: Its good you bring up tax dollars. In the heyday of early ARPANET and Internet research, it was the government footing the bill. I applaud you for not drawing up those scenarios as examples of "open source."

    Tim:"But nothing about libertarian philosophy says that free enterprise is the best way to organize all productive activities. We view markets and private property as means to the more fundamental ends of liberty and prosperity..."

    Noel: I ask you how you imagine the current technology industries, what is your ideal. Not to be rude, but all this working for free, code as a means to liberty, suggests that you liken the industries to TS Elliot's Wasteland rather than the part of the economy driving a larger part of U.S. growth, and separating our lifestyles from those in developing countries.

    Tim:"Business models aren't the point of those institutions (churches, schools), and no one participating in them expects to turn a profit from them. Precisely the same considerations apply to free software..."

    Noel: No, there is nothing wrong with that. And I know you're a talented programmer, so program all you want. Good for you, as most folks are scared of computers. I guess where you and I disagree is on exactly what part of the open source movement we're referencing. Coming from a commercial policy viewpoint, I'm not criticizing talented programmers, who can programmers in the dark, with their eyes closes, who think in programming language (some of my pals). Its where you see business justifications supplanted by this lingo open source has developed to solidify itself as a "movement" that I find open source misleading.

    Tim:"Another example of the same phenomenon is this blog. None of us are paid to blog at TLF, and none of us (I hope) ever expect to become millionaires from the TLF IPO. Yet we generate gobs of content and give it away for free. "

    Noel: You're right!!! I enjoy our interactions. And thanks for not calling this "open source" blogging.

    Tim:"...the laws of economics actually do allow free lunches�especially for intangible goods that can be reproduced at close to zero marginal cost. Open source software, like the posts on this blog, really are free."

    Noel: OK, now we're speaking the language. So, reproduction and distribution at zero marginal cost. The flip side is that because open source programmers work for free, so production costs are at zero in a sense. But here, I look back at the title of your post (Open Source as a Perpetual Motion Machine) and wonder if you'll call open source more innovative, longer sustaining sustaining. There's a reason why you bring this language in, and that should be where our next discussion starts.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: