Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | StatHacking's comments login

Nonsense. Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a container.

In particular, kidneys can be transplanted from "dead" to living, and donning between living - even inside your family - is very restricted (at least in Uruguay). Although one case may be very altruistic and reasonable, there are thousands of subtle situations which are horrendous, and all the donning process will be heavily affected.

It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

Improving the donors rate with policies is a better way to go and it hasn't reached its limits so far.

-----


>Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a container.

The analogy falls apart when you consider that one can legally donate ones bone marrow, but one cannot legally donate a slave. Thus the distinction between the two is not predicated on whether one receives payment, which is the policy change being discussed.

>It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

With organs, the law currently sets the price at $0.

-----


No, it doesn't. Bone marrow regenerates, the same is for blood (which is a tissue). One thing is donating organs, other is donating tissues. While you may define an organ as a "set of tissues" (therefore, skin). In "transplantation slang" is commonly referred to "organs" as not regenerating ones, i.e. kidneys, heart, etc.

As long as you can't sell it, there is no price at it.

-----


This is an example of why Goog's search algorithms (and others') should be open: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3268371

A subtle attack may be by making bots stop indexing it or using SEO practices to lower it enough so it would become unsearchable, and therefore, non-existent.

Or just crack into Google...

-----


UPDATE: http://www.itworld.com/software/228393/free-software-activis...

-----


Tom,

I agree with everything but the "core business" stuff and the MIT License.

The same principles apply to your core business - independent of what it is (not only GitHub).

By opensourcing all of your business, you will gain all the synergy you mentioned (i.e. libgit2) within your core.

Your competitors will benefit from it, but they won't be a challenge to you as long as they don't have the passion and insights from your team. If they can find a way to do better than you with that knowledge (expressed as software), then your position in the market is based on imperfect information (and therefore, monopolization power).

Although you may have everything to start a DVCS frontend, it is not an easy task which doesn't rely only on software: you need the ability to understand the infrastructure needed for the problem and maintain it at a reasonable speed - armies of proficient developers extending and fixing bugs, armies of sysdamins, coordinate them, decide adequate directions, etc.

Besides that, you need passion about what to do in order to keep kicking asses. Without it, it is not sustainable in the long run. Think about Launchpad, I think they add extra functionality to bzr than GitHub to git, yet people still sticks to GitHub. Why?

Also if you opensource your "core", people will need also customizations, so your competitors can become your clients where you provide developing to them - they may target other niche that you can't or your are not interesting.

This is where the license comes in: the best way of achieving this is by using AGPL3.

With AGPL3, you make sure that everything you gave it won't be restricted to others - as you haven't restricted anyone by opensourcing it.

You are not restricting others' freedoms, they can do whatever they want with the software. When someone closes the source, it's restricting others freedom, not his. What you can't do with AGPL is taking away others' freedom and right to know what they are using.

If someone improves it, then it will come back to you, and you will be able to improve from others as they improved from you.

The MIT license is good, but it doesn't close the loop and may have leaks, :D heheh!

A hug from Uruguay, Rodrigo

-----


>then your position in the market is based on imperfect information (and therefore, monopolization power).

Good! Who wants their living standard to be dependent on a never ending rat race of constantly out-innovating competitors? Especially when there are really big players out there that can throw huge resources into taking your market share.

-----


If your marketshare is based on amount of resources, then your position is sustained by entry barriers, not your skills.

If someone can gather the resources and do better than you, then it's better for all the market - not just you. What you do with AGPL is making sure that if it is based on your knowledge, you will be able to improve from who has already improved from you.

If you can't stand someone to do better than you and you can't learn from him, then you have personal issues - and those are holding back everyone. There is nothing bad in not being the best (I think is bad measuring success on money and market share, that's circumstancial) and if you are not willing to improve, then you are in the wrong place.

The same applies (IMO) to patents and industrial secrets. A patent is "public" industrial secret: while you know it, you must act as you wouldn't unless you pay. I think that is for lazy people, they want money for an idea from people who actually implement it - work. Open source is a good example about this.

A free market relies on perfect informatios on whatever technology is being used, otherwise, there is no real competition in the supply and you might end up with a captive demand.

Yes, most business models would need to adapted to this, it is not what most of the markets do. Think of the Nuclear Power Plant market (to be extreme and explain my view). There won't be many suppliers because of the activity, if you totally "opensource" the industry, you will still be buying plants and paying a lot of money - but you will be "safer" because you rely on it.

The same applies to software, there are big players who are willing to outsource and pay more (because is out of their core business or just don't have interests on the topic) if the supplier fully opens and doesn't lock in them. You will end up on a better and "fairer" position.

-----


>If your marketshare is based on amount of resources, then your position is sustained by entry barriers, not your skills.

So what. Even if I were the best programmer to ever live today, I won't always be. I don't want to starve when I'm older and not as good.

>If you can't stand someone to do better than you and you can't learn from him

It's not about learning. I have no problem learning. The problem is I need to eat to live, I need a place to stay and so on. I have to compete in a free market against others and there are plenty of people out there who will try to undercut your prices because that's easier making a better product. If I give them my work I've just made their job that much easier.

> I think that is for lazy people, they want money for an idea from people who actually implement it - work.

Complete nonsense. The issue is; technology advances take research. Stealing something you've seen someone else do can be done very quickly. If a person comes up with a new way of doing things, a novel new take on an old idea (e.g. the iPad), as soon as they put it out there everyone could just steal the idea if not for patents. They need to charge a certain amount of money to make the time they spent researching worthwhile but the people who just copy don't have those expenses.

>A free market relies on perfect informatios on whatever technology is being used

Could you provide an example of any market anywhere in the world that has perfect information? Markets are neither efficient nor entirely rational.

>if the supplier fully opens and doesn't lock in them

But this isn't "open source". When a company outsources software development they demand the source be made available to them and no one else. They would never pay if the source was going to be made available to their competitors upon completion.

-----


> they can do whatever they want with the software

What if they want to build something on top of it that is not open source? They cannot and that is a restriction. It is the definition of a restriction.

> When someone closes the source, it's restricting others freedom, not his.

How so? No one is restricted if somebody makes a private fork of a codebase.

That's like saying that if I don't go to the bar down the street tonight the people there are restricted from having fun.

-----


You can't go to your college with an Uzi and start shooting classmates. Although you "can", it is not allowed.

Is the constitution restricting your freedom? NO, that's not your freedom, that's power on taking others' life.

Another example - a less extreme and more realistic one - is a judge (or a jury). Are they "freerer" than you because they can put you on jail? Is your freedom "less" than theirs? No, you have the same freedom, what they have is power over you in a circumstance already """agreed""".

If someone wants to build on top of it, if he can't find a link like some closed drivers do with GPL software, then they are improving it. If they use your code as a base, why don't give back?

Note that this only affects you when you provide the service (AGPL) or distribute the software (GPL).

As long as you don't distribute it and use it "internally" (as US Army and DoD does) you don't have to show the source. If you provide public access to the system, then you have to show the code. So, you become another giant to step on his shoulders.

As for money, you only need (IMO) the amount for doing what you enjoy, not more (it isn't a goal per se, it's a way, not a goal). If you want to have an empire and build a sphinx with your face on it, then you have a problem with your brain's reward system, not with money - nothing will fill you up (stop using cocaine! :D hahahah! =P)

-----


(That was mostly incomprehensible, but I'll respond anyway...)

You're making the faulty assumption of thinking that someone who wants some source code that is only available under the GPL will just use it and decide to license their work under the GPL as well.

Every time I need some code for a proprietary product I'm working on I pass up GPL and AGPL code. If there's no MIT or BSD licensed code that does what I need then I will write it myself. This happens frequently. Sometimes I share the source (MIT or BSD licensed), sometimes not. If I use MIT or BSD licensed code I contribute back. Not everyone does but enough people do, and those who do contribute are happy knowing that their code may be even more useful to more people because it is not encumbered by the GPL.

So somebody who is making a proprietary thing is not restricting anyone by using an MIT or BSD licensed component. They are making a proprietary thing and the only alternative isn't to make a GPL thing. Another alternative is to make something else, or make nothing at all. No matter what they do in no way is anyone restricted from taking the MIT/BSD component and doing whatever they please with it. They are not restricted by the proprietary thing.

The GPL has its place, it's just not universally good the way RMS would have us all think.

-----


> So somebody who is making a proprietary thing is not restricting anyone by using an MIT or BSD licensed component.

Of course you are! You are restricting your customers' freedom. The idea of the GPL is bigger than just giving you, a software developer, freedom to use it. The GPL ensures that your final end user also had all the freedoms that the you, the middle man, had. They can stand on the shoulders of you, who were given the freedom to stand on the shoulders of someone else.

That's why it baffles me when people make the claim that the GPL stifles freedom. It seems such an selfish, narrow view.

-----


As we say here, "your freedom ends where others' start". You are not forcing anyone to distribute the software or do whatever they want to as long as you respect others' freedom.

What you are doing is not giving the power to restrict others if you distribute it so you keep it flowing. The only way of achieving freedom and equality is (IMO) to equally distribute power on all, so you will end up with the phrase at the beginning.

If you want to use that sense of "restriction", it is restricting power, not freedom. Restricting power is granting others their freedom.

-----


Agree to disagree then. The alternative to Windows and OS X is not GPL-licensed Windows and GPL-licensed OS X, it's no Windows and no OS X, and we still have BSDs, Linux, and other open source systems in the ecosystem.

Nobody who wants an open source OS has been restricted, and those who want a different experience than open source provides have the freedom to choose a proprietary OS. If someone wants an open source Windows or OS X they can make one[1][2]. They are not restricted.

In the real world where not everyone is a programmer people don't feel restricted by proprietary software. Only in some hypothetical ivory tower manned by RMS are non-developers restricted by proprietary things.

[1] http://etoileos.com/ [2] http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

I'm equally baffled when people can't accept a world where there is more than one type of license and software. Open source has its place in kernels, dev tools (editors, compilers, etc), education, and so on. That does not mean it's unequivocally the best and only model for all software in the world. I felt empowered after switching from Linux to OS X and I'm a developer, because I'd rather not hack on my OS to make it usable. I'd rather hack on the cool stuff that I want to hack on. I'd rather just use iPhoto than try to make F-spot, or whatever the photo app of the day on Linux is, not crash when importing photos, or upload to my online gallery, or usable for day to day use. I'd rather just use Billings than try to build my own open source version from scratch, presumably while still trying to pay the bills with other work. I'd rather just use Acorn than wait for GIMP to be usable by version 3.2 in 2020. And so on.

I still use open source software too. Emacs, iTerm2, v8, Firefox, WebKit, Ruby, GCC, LLVM, and many small projects. And contribute to other smaller projects that I'm actually capable of understanding and contributing to such as node, GitX, and many libraries around the net. I open source tools that I make that I think others might find useful, and if someone takes my MIT licensed tool and uses it in a proprietary thing I think it's great that my code was able to help someone else. I don't selfishly demand that they contribute everything they add back to me if they don't want to. My code helped someone accomplish their goal faster or better and that makes me happy.

If you don't understand that's fine, but I am absolutely not restricted by the proprietary software that I choose to use. I won't even call you narrow or selfish for not understanding.

edit: While writing that list of open source software I use, I realized that only Emacs and GCC are GPL. Why is it that the most popular open source software is not GPL licensed? If the GPL encourages and fosters collaboration why is the MIT, BSD, and MPL licensed software more active and popular? It almost seems as if removing the restrictions from the GPL encourages collaboration. The Linux kernel is a notable exception, so I'm not saying this is 100% true, but the evidence seems to support it in many cases.

-----


> In the real world where not everyone is a programmer people don't feel restricted by proprietary software. Only in some hypothetical ivory tower manned by RMS are non-developers restricted by proprietary things.

This is irrespective and has nothing to do with the point. I can figure out tons of adjectives to """describe""" you. Also, I don't know why people think their reality is "the real world" and extrapolates it to others' "real worlds".

It is not about being a dev or not, it's about a system which someone relies on (even a society with Google) and ensuring its continuity and the best for all. If you ensure it, people will recognize your work and the money will come.

> While writing that list of open source software I use, I realized that only Emacs and GCC are GPL. Why is it that the most popular open source software is not GPL licensed? If the GPL encourages and fosters collaboration why is the MIT, BSD, and MPL licensed software more active and popular? It almost seems as if removing the restrictions from the GPL encourages collaboration. The Linux kernel is a notable exception, so I'm not saying this is 100% true, but the evidence seems to support it in many cases.

A software is "good" independent of its license. Licenses don't fix bugs. If you measure by adoption, then you should conclude that Visual Studio is what has encouraged most of the software developing in the past - and I think it's true, but hasn't to do with licensing and business models.

Your evidence supports that many licenses are being used, and that's a good thing. If you want to do things because many people does them, then you should adopt the Chinese culture. We have a phrase here: "Eat Shit: Trillions of flies can't be wrong." (this is not about Chinesse culture, they have outstanding good things and others not so good).

It took about 10 years to the industry to understand that they could earn money with open source software. It was very hard to try to explain someone that he could do better with a different model. Now that the industry has "internalize" it, everybody loves open source. AGPL is the next step: there is room for improvement and you will probably (IMO) do better with a more sustainable model.

-----


I think you may be jumping to conclusions about what I think. I'm generally OK with proprietary software--I use Mac OS X on my main computer. I've paid lots of money for proprietary applications. I've released source under a variety of licenses (including GPL, proprietary and BSDish) and feel that they each have their place. I do feel much better using open source stuff because I know the rug is never going to be pulled out from under me (which happened recently with some proprietary scanner software I bought a few years ago).

BUT, I do think you can objectively measure "freedom" as it relates to software. The people who tend to complain about the GPL being "restrictive" are people that want to take code and release something proprietary. From their perspective the license is forbidding them to do what they want to do and is therefore restricive. But that's only considering themselves and not the people they are releasing the program to which is why I characterized it as "selfish". I think if you step back and look at why the GPL requires you to distribute the source with your binaries it is obvious that they are trying to give your customers the same freedoms you had. That objectively increases the amount of freedom in the whole software ecosystem.

> If you don't understand that's fine, but I am absolutely not restricted by the proprietary software that I choose to use.

Yeah, you are restricted--You are not allowed to compile up the source to your legitimately purchased Photoshop. I fully understand that you don't care (and I don't either [well, until there's a stupid bug]), but to say that you're not restricted is to, I think, misunderstand the situation.

-----


I think that idealistically we agree, and it also seems like we agree on a practical level. We may be in a semantic death spiral, but I'm leaving my long reply here as well since I already wrote it.

--

Ok I see what you mean about thinking that the GPL is restrictive is selfish. I don't think it's necessarily bad to be selfish sometimes. Everyone has to earn a living and wanting to do so is inherently selfish. It's difficult to earn a living off selling and supporting open source software. Sure RedHat does it, and Cygnus does it. There are far more failures though. It seems that the best way to create open source software for a living is to work for a big company that sponsors a project such as Linux, LLVM, or something like that. The rest of us sell proprietary software and services and until you have a lot of momentum I don't think it's wise to open source everything. Releasing your project under the GPL or AGPL from day one is scary for most people. Selfish? Absolutely. Necessarily bad? Not in my opinion.

> Yeah, you are restricted--You are not allowed to compile up the source to your legitimately purchased Photoshop. I fully understand that you don't care (and I don't either [well, until there's a stupid bug]), but to say that you're not restricted is to, I think, misunderstand the situation.

It depends on your point of view. There's the point of view that RMS has: we have all been duped by big corporations. We're captives, and just because we like our prison and can't see the fences doesn't mean we are not restricted. This is the "captive" definition of restrict.

Another definition of restrict is to limit someone's movement or actions, as in "restrict someone to", or "restrict something to". Is one really limited if they don't care about those limits? I think this is where it's easy to get bogged down in semantics and philosophy.

Nation states limit and restrict us in many ways. Is that necessarily bad? Technically we are restricted, but is it useful to try and convince everyone that we've all been duped and anarchy is the true way to bee free? What if you just live in a country that is "free enough" and allows you to do what you want to do, without feeling restricted? If I'm thinking idealistically then yes a state of anarchy where everyone behaves in a cooperative and cordial manner sounds like bliss. But unfortunately that just doesn't work in real life.

-----


Thks 4 that contribution Rodriguo, I think the same but wouldn't have put it best!

Fadi from Silverpeas

www.silverpeas.org (GNU GPL 3)

-----


Thks 4 that contribution Rodriguo, I think the same but wouldn't have put it best!

-----


so you think Google should open source their search algos?

-----


Yes, I think so - especially with algorithms: math can't be owned.

On Google's implementation of them, yes, of course! This would have tremendous impacts and benefits for all.

I think your sarcasm came from "What happens with Bing? They are hungry!", and you can't understand the point inside that reasoning framework.

If Goog releases their algos, the would gain even a better position in the market.

All the society would benefit of controlling what makes you exists for others (if you can't google it, it doesn't exists), a storm of commits improving it would come (even fixing what makes that disgusting SEO practices) and you will have a viable alternative to Google: you will be able to choose.

Can Microsoft manage an infrastructure as big and efficient as Google - tuned over the years for a SE, with thousands of people with expertise, experience, motivation and values? I think not.

If Goog releases under AGPL, if Bing uses it, they will be able to look at the implementations, its improvements and merge them "back".

If Microsoft doesn't want to use the code, then they will have to spend years developing the same (and find the right people for it - which are already in Google). In that timeframe, Goog will keep improving - otherwise, a better alternative will eventually surpass them.

Yes, the can plain steal and don't enforce the license, but, Microsoft stealing?!?!?!? =P

This model relies on two things: - You are willing to work continuously on it because it makes you happy - You want to be on top because of how you do your job, not because you know a secret - Money is irrelevant to you: you live (luckily) between 80 and 100 years, and suppose that you are on your 30s - if I was given 100 million dollars, I will probably not be able to spend them as I won't have time to do it (think Larry Page or Billionaires, but at a smaller scale). If you get a huge amount of money, after some years of "livin; la vida loca", would you return to code?

I would.

-----


Based on his post, yes, in his view, everything should be open source.

-----


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: