[h2o-discuss] Eric Raymond: Another interesting "essay"...

["Stefan Keel" <sakone@mail4.halcyon.com>]

Hello all,

It would seem that ESR has once again spurred many wonderful minds to the
art of communication.

> in any case, three is almost a party/ crowd, na?

> and i'll try to post some comments soon...

> although i should warn that the slashdot stuff seems less interesting to me
> rather than... <something non-inflammatory but in the ballpark of "sophmoric"
> here> to me.

...cheers Mark... I think Umberto Eco noted that three is enough to create a
conspiracy, anyway, so perhaps we are headed toward something wonderful
here.

Although I haven't taken the time to read ESR's latest work, I thought I
could comment on some of the posting going on in this discussion.

Tuyet wrote...

> This is just a general question pertaining to the free-source on another
> subject, medical research. Some of the successful drug treatments for a
> variety of immunosuppressed diseases derived from the results of 'free'
> research projects done by students and scientists.  Peer reviewed publications
> in pharmacology, virology, and/or microbiology are providing important sources
> for the drug companies to develop commercial products that would be tested in
> clinical trials.  Isn't the concept similar to your discussion on the economic
> feasibility or logic in giving the secret codes away. These companies are
> 'giving' their goods away. Is it different b/c binary codes are not tangible
> whereas the source for a pioneering medical treatment is.

Two positions come to mind.  First was mentioned by Robert, when he wrote...

> Raymond's argument, reduced to its essentials, is as follows.  Most software
> is produced by companies for internal use, not for sale. (See the essay for
> justification).  The people and companies producing such bespoke software have
> a shared economic interest in there being a common, freely available pool of
> code which they can customize; contributing new software of general use to the
> pool costs them nothing (since they weren't going to sell the stuff anyway,
> having no hope of recouping support costs), and has the benefit of keeping the
> pool a going phenomenon.

I would be inclined to view this as something similar to what you were
speaking about in the development of drugs for commercial use.  Although I
have never been employed in either field, I have always noticed some level
of helper mentality.  I imagine a carpenter teaching his laborer a few
tricks to working with hammer-beam trusses, ensuring they're level, plumb
and square; or a journeyman press operator learning some tricks on
registration and trapping from a twenty year veteran.  Each situation, to
me, offers a bit of code that another can take and use later - perhaps even
secret code that may or may not be marketable.  Although I haven't read
them, I'm sure there are books which discuss the codes, or tricks, in the
given fields that I've mentioned.

I feel somewhat safe to speculate that within any environment there is a bit
of sharing going on.  It's just that it is noticed differently at different
levels of magnitude.  I would almost think that it is based on our inherent
desire to survive, which takes me on to the other thought that I had
pertaining to your question.

I would like to hope that within the medical community a certain amount of
this sharing remains very strong.  This involves the fundamental instinct to
survive.  When we see someone hurting, we feel something.  At least I do,
and so if I happened to have some knowledge that might help ease the other's
anguish then I would share it.  It comes down to life, in this case, as
opposed to product, and so I imagine that colleagues all over the world
would question another who proclaimed to be a doctor or medical scientist
and didn't share his findings to help us all.

As it currently stands, these machines which we work with on a daily basis
have limited emotional attachment to us.  If my Macintosh catches a cold, as
it did during the AutoStart Worm epidemic, I don't necessarily feel as much
pity for it, though I did want it fixed with minimal data loss.
Unfortunately, it doesn't have enough of a self-preservation instinct to
really complain, help me feel it's pain, or perhaps ask other colleagues to
help with its ailment.  I did, and so I suddenly came upon a number of fixes
which I never paid a cent for, though I am grateful to those who made the
initial discovery.

Is it, then, that only when we face loss of data or loss of life that we
openly share the knowledge to thwart the consequences?  A deeper discussion
to be sure.  Still, in situations where certain code is freely available, it
is shared with the intent to help others, as Robert mentioned earlier.
Views then turn to something other than economic interest.

Thanks,

Sak.