Amsterdam
Amsterdam for EuroOSCON and for the meetings
possible only at important conferences like this. Flying into Amsterdam from
Toronto via Chicago (don't ask) just three days after Stockholm doesn't so much
roll me with jetlag as with airplane disorientation. I don't suffer from
jetlag, which is just as well. My trick: don't
sleep.
EuroOSCON has not begun yet but
it should be interesting, if only because of its relevance. For the last
several years (like, five), I have noted that open source takes place elsewhere
than the U.S.; that it is a arrogant conceit to presume that the momentum and
importance, production and distribution, and general acceptance of open source
is located in the U.S. In fact, it probably has not been for some time,
especially if one includes distribution logic. In Europe, governments have been
endorsing FOSS for at least the last couple of years. In the US, it is only no
that Massachusetts has taken the plunge. Here, in Europe, it is a serious
economic strategy, or so it would seem. Or perhaps it's still located in
government offices? Thus, we see the French administration using OOo; Munich
(slowly) migrating to Linux; Mannheim,
too.
But where are the businesses, the
enterprises? Where are SAP, Phillips, Bull, Nokia, Ericsson, and so on? Yes,
some, like Nokia, have some FOSS endeavours. But they seem small and wan in
comparison to, say, Sun's. And DRKW, of course, has OpenAdaptor. But that's
again relatively small fry. What's missing is a large effort by any of those
enterprises. Perhaps we'll see something at EuroOSCON or at some subsequent
meeting. But I think that the situation in Europe for now precludes major
efforts, though that could change, given the right circumstances. Perhaps we'll
see some such changes in this
EuroOSCON.
Regardless of the particular
reasons--and I think a careful examination is needed--what the lack suggests is
that in approaching regions one must deploy a set of arguments, with one taking
precedence over the other according to the exigencies of the
situation.
* Efficiency of production:
For large projects, at least, FOSS is more efficient; or to refine the argument
even more, horizonless collaboration. It's more efficient in that software does
not hinge upon the constraints of any one company's resources nor on the
limitations of any one person's imagination or specs. (It's for this latter
reason that Linus Torvalds has recently railed against specifications in FOSS
production.) However, FOSS production is actually not the same across the
board, in every country. In the US and Europe, it may depend, for instance,
more on horizontal structures; in India, I've noticed, it depends more on
hierarchical structures: A professor, or other lead determines the work to be
done by a cadre. The *licence* in each case is the same, but the *structure* of
work differs, as does thus the community produced. Any argument then that
pretends to be successful needs to take into consideration therefore the local
circumstances. Selling FOSS as a libertarian medicine that will cure diseased
hierarchies of production won't work everywhere. Politics is always local, even
though its effects are always global.
*
Corollary but not necessarily following from the first, cost is reduced for
producers and consumers. In production, the cost is reduced by the interleaving
assistance of other developers. Overall expenditure goes up, to be sure but
only becauuse more people are participating in creating the
commons.
* Distribution in FOSS is
superior but not necessarily a given: Many entities, especially the larger and
more institutionalised ones, will resist accepting FOSS just because it
seemingly forces the user to deviate from accepted models of consumption. That
is, one often just downloads it for free; or can, even if one pays. But that
said, many, many people are more than happy to act as nodes in the rhizome and
help distribute FOSS if only because they support the idea and take pleasure,
more and civic, in participating in this example of civic
behaviour.
* Which brings us to: Moral
responsibility. Responsibility to whom? In the case of libertarian models of
open source, this is pretty much a non-issue. But these theories take on the
perspective of the developer, who evidently has *no* moral ideas at all (except
that he loves himself) and don't really touch on the groundwork for
FOISS.
But, in fact, nearly all of key
FOSS technology has been born and incubated by government money. More recently,
now that the basic economy of the government funded Internet is enabled,
secondary economies have grown into being. it is the responsibility, I'd argue,
of companies to be good citizens and contribute to the common good; not repay a
debt but to ensure rather that the commons is replenished, enriched. After all,
the nature of the social bond is that the contributions you make, that I make,
benefit us all, not more one person over
another.
I am sorry I'll be having to
leave Amsterdam and EuroOSCON tomorrow; Amsterdam is a wonderful city. But I'm
sure I'll be back.
Amsterdam for EuroOSCON and for the meetings
possible only at important conferences like this. Flying into Amsterdam from
Toronto via Chicago (don't ask) just three days after Stockholm doesn't so much
roll me with jetlag as with airplane disorientation. I don't suffer from
jetlag, which is just as well. My trick: don't sleep.
EuroOSCON has not begun yet but it
should be interesting, if only because of its relevance. For the last several
years (like, five), I have noted that open source takes place elsewhere than the
U.S.; that it is a arrogant conceit to presume that the momentum and importance,
production and distribution, and general acceptance of open source is located in
the U.S. In fact, it probably has not been for some time, especially if one
includes distribution logic. In Europe, governments have been endorsing FOSS
for at least the last couple of years. In the US, it is only no that
Massachusetts has taken the plunge. Here, in Europe, it is a serious economic
strategy, or so it would seem. Or perhaps it's still located in government
offices? Thus, we see the French administration using OOo; Munich (slowly)
migrating to Linux; Mannheim, too.
But where are the businesses, the
enterprises? Where are SAP, Phillips, Bull, Nokia, Ericsson, and so on? Yes,
some, like Nokia, have some FOSS endeavours. But they seem small and wan in
comparison to, say, Sun's. And DRKW, of course, has OpenAdaptor. But that's
again relatively small fry. What's missing is a large effort by any of those
enterprises. Perhaps we'll see something at EuroOSCON or at some subsequent
meeting. But I think that the situation in Europe for now precludes major
efforts, though that could change, given the right circumstances. Perhaps we'll
see some such changes in this
EuroOSCON.
Regardless of the
particular reasons--and I think a careful examination is needed--what the lack
suggests is that in approaching regions one must deploy a set of arguments, with
one taking precedence over the other according to the exigencies of the
situation. Thus:
* Efficiency of
production: For large projects, at least, FOSS is more efficient; or to refine
the argument even more, horizonless collaboration. It's more efficient in that
software does not hinge upon the constraints of any one company's resources nor
on the limitations of any one person's imagination or specs. (It's for this
latter reason that Linus Torvalds has recently railed against specifications in
FOSS production.) However, FOSS production is actually not the same across the
board, in every country. In the US and Europe, it may depend, for instance,
more on horizontal structures; in India, I've noticed, it depends more on
hierarchical structures: A professor, or other lead determines the work to be
done by a cadre. The *licence* in each case is the same, but the *structure* of
work differs, as does thus the community produced. Any argument then that
pretends to be successful needs to take into consideration therefore the local
circumstances. Selling FOSS as a libertarian medicine that will cure diseased
hierarchies of production won't work everywhere. Politics is always local, even
though its effects are always
global.
* Corollary but not
necessarily following from the first, cost is reduced for producers and
consumers. In production, the cost is reduced by the interleaving assistance of
other developers. Overall expenditure goes up, to be sure but only becauuse more
people are participating in creating the
commons.
* Distribution in FOSS is
superior but not necessarily a given: Many entities, especially the larger and
more institutionalised ones, will resist accepting FOSS just because it
seemingly forces the user to deviate from accepted models of consumption. That
is, one often just downloads it for free; or can, even if one pays. But that
said, many, many people are more than happy to act as nodes in the rhizome and
help distribute FOSS if only because they support the idea and take pleasure,
more and civic, in participating in this example of civic behaviour.
* Which brings us to: Moral
responsibility. Responsibility to whom? In the case of libertarian models of
open source, this is pretty much a non-issue. But these theories take on the
perspective of the developer, who evidently has *no* moral ideas at all (except
that he loves himself) and don't really touch on the groundwork for FOISS.
But, in fact, nearly all of key
FOSS technology has been born and incubated by government money. More recently,
now that the basic economy of the government funded Internet is enabled,
secondary economies have grown into being. it is the responsibility, I'd argue,
of companies to be good citizens and contribute to the common good; not repay a
debt but to ensure rather that the commons is replenished, enriched. After all,
the nature of the social bond is that the contributions you make, that I make,
benefit us all, not more one person over
another.
I am sorry I'll be having
to leave Amsterdam and EuroOSCON tomorrow; Amsterdam is a wonderful city. But
I'm sure I'll be back.
Posted: Sun - October 16, 2005 at 12:11 PM