When the GPL makes complete sense
Before I forget all about this software world, I wanted to put in a word for the GPL for a different reason that I have done in the past.
Explaining the advantages of freedom for software in a business setting was always a difficult excercise. Reading a manifesto makes you look like a bomb throwing anarchist most of the time. So in fact we focused on the free as in beer, as opposed to the free as in freedom when it comes to corporate america.
But place yourself at the point of singularity. In 10, 20 or maybe 200 years, man and machine will merge. Increasingly we will use software to control functions of the body.
In that world, you want to have "free software" as in "freedom". Money wont really be the issue, freedom to run and modify will be. You want freedom to run the software that backs up your memories, you want the freedom to modify the HUD software in your field of vision. Imagine waiting for "human service pack 3.1" to fix bugs, it can't be. Imagine your software shutting down because you haven't paid your subscription dues. Un-imaginable.
The notion of "free-men" will take on a new dimension. It will come to signify those that are running free software in their bodies and are fully in control of that body software. The GPL makes complete sense in that perspective.
Mark my words, or something.
Explaining the advantages of freedom for software in a business setting was always a difficult excercise. Reading a manifesto makes you look like a bomb throwing anarchist most of the time. So in fact we focused on the free as in beer, as opposed to the free as in freedom when it comes to corporate america.
But place yourself at the point of singularity. In 10, 20 or maybe 200 years, man and machine will merge. Increasingly we will use software to control functions of the body.
In that world, you want to have "free software" as in "freedom". Money wont really be the issue, freedom to run and modify will be. You want freedom to run the software that backs up your memories, you want the freedom to modify the HUD software in your field of vision. Imagine waiting for "human service pack 3.1" to fix bugs, it can't be. Imagine your software shutting down because you haven't paid your subscription dues. Un-imaginable.
The notion of "free-men" will take on a new dimension. It will come to signify those that are running free software in their bodies and are fully in control of that body software. The GPL makes complete sense in that perspective.
Mark my words, or something.
Comments
Your notion of freedom scares me. I have not got the spare time you have so please point me to a reference in nature were a species explicitly (deliberate) changes itself. Nature does allow change and corrects those that are not suitable for the operational environment context - DEATH.
I already have my fears with the existing control systems we rely (flying!) on and now you want individuals to upgrade themselves. There would have to be some major technology and process changes in software development to make this even feasible (legal) for those few foolish to trust in another human. I have not seen any real evidence of Open Source or Free software improving the overall quality of systems. In fact outside of a few good open source projects the quality is dismal.
Instead of FREE upgrades (changing the source code) why not focus on building software that adapts and has well defined and open control surfaces (events,operations...). Of course there is still that trial and error cycle which can be detrimental especially if we are going to speed up such adaptations from centuries to months.
regards,
William
relax, by the time those technological innovations come around you will be completely dead. If not, you will be able to join the resistance anyway and fight the singularity all you want.
Social institutions are slow to change, as the book discusses. Imagine what the churches will have to say on the matter.
To answer your first question: nature itself explicitely changes itself.
It is clear that we cannot foresee the implications of genetic self-improvement. It is too early to tell, and too "new". It is already a vibrant industry if you include the pharma.
Why is it that there is this ongoing rhetoric within the open source community that the main advantage of open source code is that you can fix a software yourself? I am a firm believer in Open Source software myself, and I think the benefit it that it produces wealth for the community instead of producing wealth for an individual or the shareholders of a company. So back to my question, you know as well as I do that the percentage of the population who can actually fix a bug in software is extremely low, so low that it does not represent a significant market segment. So why does the open source community always come back with this argument. Is the open source community simply a disguised special interest group for programmers?
Regards,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
The above statement seems to miss the point of software itself. I use many free and commercial software products and they have produced wealth for me when they WORK and make me more PRODUCTIVE.
Open Source does not imply Good Software. Commercial Software does not imply Bad Software. There is good software and bad software and it tends to be attributed to the quality of the original design and development than accessibility to the source code (which most people rarely read). I can design and develop software better than most people I know. Why should I and my work be classified (or ranked) so poorly? I like spending more of my time on trying to solve hard technical problems than thinking about the next innovative software business model than will result in my software spreading like a virus through a community irrespective of technical quality or value.
A commercial product with well defined contractual open API's beats an open source product with everything published and subject to change (at the next developer whim) in my book any day. Open APIs (standard or not) have largely worked for the industry to-date. Have we forgotten this? I find it hard considering the amount of software that works today on my Mac and PC.
Commercial software can only survive in a capitalist society. Who knows how long that model will hold. We saw the communist regimes collapse literally in no time. Who can tell what the US & EU social-economic systems will look like 10 years from now. Open Source software is not directly bound to the fate of a company, their business practices, a sector of the economy, the economic deficiencies of a country, or a region of the world. That is in my opinion what makes the difference and what makes open source code so valuable, when it comes to mission critical applications, like running a government, or the ones Marc talks about. This is why open source creates real wealth for the community, but that is not what the open source community is pitching in public.
Patrick
Some frog species can changes sex when the sex ratio gets out of balance:
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99128.htm
But anyway, that's built into their genes already. I think what your referring to would be a species that can force itself to have a genetic mutation.
Apologies for taking this off-thread, I just always found the adaptation mechanisms in nature to be truly amazing.
-C