Wed, 28 Feb 2007
My position on attribution
I'm starting to be settled on a position on attribution:
An Approved Open Source license may name an Original Author, and may
require that a majority of users be able to name the Original Author.
The license may not dictate the means through which that goal is
accomplished. The license may not impose this requirement if less
than one-third of the software is present in a derived work.
It's testable, and scales because at most three Original Authors need
to be acknowledged. It is also congruent with OSD#10. It also rules
against the SugarCRM license which is currently annoying so many open
source developers.
I could be talked out of this if you have a sufficiently good argument.
Send me email.
Posted [17:32] [Filed in:
opensource]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Thanks, Hillary!
In an AP article, we are informed that Hillary Clinton is going to
take $60 BILLION dollars from "big oil", and then spend it on
"clean-energy research and development." Where does she think "big
oil" gets its money from? What is "big oil" going to do when its
costs increase by $60 BILLION dollars? Does she think there are going
to be no negative effects on the American public?
Obviously, she is appealing to the greed of the American public.
"These are the kinds of things that I will do if you vote for me for
President."
Posted [17:04] [Filed in:
economics]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Mon, 26 Feb 2007
100% Open Source
These folks: http://www.phpfox.com/ use 'open
source' as a selling feature, where the open only refers to
'non-encrypted source code' rather than distribution rights. Here's
what I told them via their Contact web form:
Hi. Your claim that your software is 100% Open Source, and yet you do
not use an OSI approved Open Source license. At the very least, this
will confuse your customers. Confused customers tend to avoid your
business. At some level of misunderstanding, somebody might think
that your software is actually Open Source and redistribute your
software infringing your copyright. If you attempt to sue them, they
could claim innocent infringement, saying that they were relying on
your assertion that the software is Open Source. At the very worst,
you might be engaging in fraudulent business practices. Most people
know what Open Source means, and using a definition intended to
mislead is fraud.
May I suggest that you use the term "Source Available" instead?
Posted [12:08] [Filed in:
opensource]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Sat, 24 Feb 2007
The Shangri-La Diet
I weigh too much. The weight itself isn't the problem. It's more that
the pad of fat in my belly interferes with proper taiji breathing. Have
tried various dieting schemes and of course none of them worked over the
long-run. Hope springs eternal, of course. What makes the Shangri-La Diet more likely to succeed is that it has a
theory for why diets fail based on evoluntionary biology.
So, I'm gonna give it a try. First dose of ELOO last night. Not so
hungry for breakfast, but of course that's probably me fooling myself.
Posted [11:53] [Filed in:
food]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
FreeER Markets
A the end of 2006 (literally) I posted on "Faith in Free
Markets". Through the (free market) miracle that is Google, I
found a blog posting by Jeremy Hunsinger objecting to
the possibility of saying anything about free markets, since all
markets have interventions, saying:
I'd love to know where they found a free market to have
faith in. I've never seen one that wasn't structured, biased or
otherwise guaranteed by governmental or corporate
structures.
Unfortunately, this idea exhibits a profound lack of understanding
of economics. Jeremy isn't the only person to make this claim. A
quick Google search for "no such thing as a free market" finds this and this
and this which
agree 100% with Jeremy, and are equally wrong. Economists rarely
study anything by itself. Economics isn't the study of one thing; it
is the study of one thing versus another. Economists try to figure
out what you'll give up of one thing in order to get another, and
why.
There's no point to objecting to advocacy for free markets by
pointing out there is no pure free market, free of any coercive
influence. We can compare more-free markets to less free markets, and
decide which ones we like. If we like more-free markets, then we
advocate for free markets, all the while realizing that the people who
like less free markets will prevent us from having a completely free
market.
It's not about free markets. It's about free-er markets.
Posted [11:35] [Filed in:
economics]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Sun, 11 Feb 2007
Unfinished Railroads of New York State
I've started a page for the Unfinished
Railroads of New York State. These are railroads which got past
the design state into the building stage, but not to the operational
stage. In other words, a hump of dirt in the woods, or a set of
abutments bracketing a stream which don't necessarily have a railroad
on either side of them.
Posted [01:07] [Filed in:
railroads]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Was Archy ever alive?
Was Archy ever a
live project? Of course Jef Raskin is dead now, so if Archy was ever
alive, it is less alive now. But my thesis is instead that Archy was
stillborn.
Archy, as a project, is radically different. In order to use it,
you need to invest quite a bit of effort. As a proprietary,
commercial system, it would have needed a huge amount of investment.
The system needed to be programmed from the bottom up. It's so
different from most other software that very little could be reused.
Then, the company would have had to pay staff for a good twenty years
before the software got enough sales to support its staff. That level
of funding is nowhere to be found.
The only way, in my opinion, Archy could ever have succeeded is if
it were an Open Source project. It
isn't. The investment needed is no less simply because it's open
source. What is different about open source versus proprietary
development is that the investors are investing their own time, for
their own reasons, for their own purposes. And yet the license they
chose for Archy makes it clear that anybody contributing code does so
for the benefit of the Raskin
Center, since they and only they can license the code for
commercial use.
So if you look at various Raskin Center pages, you'll see that no
bug reports have been acted on in the last 14 months. Basically, the
last person with permission to change Archy left then, and never
turned the lights out. At this point, the Raskin Center should throw
the existing code under a BSD-style license and see what happens to it.
Posted [01:03] [Filed in:
opensource]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Sat, 10 Feb 2007
Blind Faith in Free Markets
I will tell you why I have blind faith in free trade. It's because
any alternative to free trade requires coercion. Coercion requires
threats and acts of violence. I am a pacifist. I believe that all violence
which is not directly engaged in reducing even worse violence
(that is, I believe that a police are necessary) is evil, and counter
to God's will. I think that violence is the worst injustice. Thus, I
think that violence cannot be used to counter injustice. Thus, I am
philosophically opposed to most laws which interfere with trade,
e.g. a minimum wage law.
You can see that my faith isn't so blind as some would say.
There's a train of logic which only requires one assumption: that
violence is the worst injustice. I would say instead that some people
close their eyes when it comes to regulations.
Posted [12:43] [Filed in:
economics]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Fri, 09 Feb 2007
The Knack
Posted [12:28] [Filed in:
life]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Thu, 08 Feb 2007
Governments vs. Contractors
Matt Yglesias writes a somewhat confused blog posting about "The
Trouble With Contracting." He opines that governments are less
efficient than the private sector. He lays the blame on just one
aspect of the private sector: that badly run companies go out of
business. Then he notes that when governments buy their services
through badly run companies, they don't necessarily go out of
business.
He is totally missing the reason why badly run companies go out of
business. They fail because other companies out-compete them.
Competition is what you get when multiple vendors try to cooperate
with the customer more than anyone else.
If, as Matt suggests, companies are not chosen to maximize
cooperation, then buying services through contractors is not likely to
be any more efficient. He's quite right even though he doesn't
understand why he's right.
But the real problem is not whether governments hire employees, or
hire contractors. The real problem is when governments hire anybody.
Governments don't have the flexibility to provide many different
levels of service to different groups.
Compare, for example, restaurants to schools. Restaurants are
subject to very little government control. They have to find an
acceptable location if the community restricts business locations via
zoning. They have to maintain certain standards of cleanliness and
food preparation. Other than that, they can sell anything anytime
anywhere in any quantity and combination to any customers. Schools
have one curriculum for all students in a single grade. All students
are expected to learn all material at the same rate at the same age at
the same time of day. A tiny bit of flexibility is provided for
special education students -- but even then the goal would be for them
to learn the standard curriculum (aka mainstreaming).
School choice will have very little affect on any of this (or so I
predict). "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Initially parents
will be able to choose from a substantial range of schooling. Over
time, taxpayers will rebel against, say, pagan schooling, or math-only
schooling, or athletic schooling, and more and more restrictions will
be placed on them.
That, in a nutshell, is the case against government provision of
services. The private sector might be more efficient, but efficiency
isn't really the goal. The goal is for everyone to get what they
want, not for everyone to get what everyone wants. A free market
provides the first; governments provide the second.
Posted [01:47] [Filed in:
economics]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]
Marketolatry
From time to time you will see people accuse free marketeers of
"marketolatry". You'll see one here.
The implication of that term is to say that we are worse than
ideologues: that we worship free markets as our God. Thanks, no, I
already have a God; don't need one so imperfect as markets, free or
otherwise.
The problem with this accusation is it implies that we wouldn't
change our minds in the face of contrary facts. The speaker usually
believes that they have irrefutable contrary facts. Since we aren't
convinced by their facts, we must be ideologues, or worse,
marketolatrators.
Consider that they might be wrong. Certainly they don't.
Posted [01:10] [Filed in:
economics]
[
permalink]
[
Google for the title] [
digg this]