Re: [DIYbio] Re: [biocurious] Important Update from Kristina

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=SFtr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> In fact, open source is the capitalism side of free software. OSI etc.

Complicated assertion. It's commonly held that "Open Source" is
friendlier to "business" than "Free Software". But what that really
means is "friendlier to other businesses", at the expense of the
software author.

If you write software for your own work, and you want to share the
source code (and you should), but you're concerned that competitors
will steal your work without reciprocating, then you should not use
"Open Source" licenses, you should use "Free Software" licenses,
because that way your competitors are legally obliged to reciprocate
and return any improvements upon your code, or simply not use your code.

So when people suggest that a developer use a "business friendly open
source" license, they're generally suggesting they make useful idiots of
themselves.

Neither license is less or more capitalist than the other if we assume
the rainbows-and-sunshine myth of
capitalism-as-productive-entrepreneurialism, though "Open Source" is
certainly closer to the reality of
I'll-rent-you-water-so-you-can-survive-to-pump-more-for-me-tomorrow
capitalism, and was created as a fearful reaction to the more
egalitarian, yet more commercially valid for those who embrace it, Free
Software movement.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion. "Free/Libre" and "Open
Source" are both paradigms for development of products; perhaps not
exclusively for software and source code, but not very appropriate for
discussion of organisations.

Organisations, at least where I live, are already "open source" to
whatever extent is meaningful; you can, with a little investigation,
get information on business model, annual returns, executives,
employment numbers, etc.
It's kind of like when we discuss "open source biology", even though at
present there's only one real "language" in biology that's analogous to
raw binary in computers, so there's no "source" to speak of except DNA
itself. And DNA can't be obfuscated. You could say "Open Source DNA
Design Files", but "Open Source DNA" confuses a lot of boundaries.

So yea, not really sure why this was raised in the first place.
Good luck biocurious friends; pretty much every co-operative or
collective venture goes through this phase as raw momentum gives way to
a need for structure. I'm confident ye'll sort it out.

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:50:54 -0500
Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Cathal Garvey (Phone) <
> cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
>
> > Since when is "coop" equal to "open source"? Come to that, when did
> > "open source" become an alternative to Capitalism, and not merely
> > Free Software's less rights(-and-business)-focused stepchild?
> >
>
> In fact, open source is the capitalism side of free software. OSI etc.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>