-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
generalizing-open-source.html
426 lines (353 loc) · 16.2 KB
/
generalizing-open-source.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
---
layout: default
title: "Generalizing Open Source"
last-updated: May 2023
---
<!--
The Dream: Live in a world we can trust.
It's a pretty old dream, actually: John Steinbeck wrote about it in
The Grapes of Wrath. Arguably, the Marxist notion of communism is
a variant of this same dream.
Not Communism: We respect, even value, personal property rights. What's yours
is yours, and what's mine is mine.
Not Socialism: Is characterized by distributed organizations; not heirarchical
(though heirarchies are realized within virtually any given organization.)
Not Capitalism: We are interested in products, goods, services per se, and
not turning a profit on any one of them.
"Cooperativism": Disjoint organizations working together for mutual benefit.
<p>
That is to say, our goal is to prosper <em>within</em> the
status quo— the capitalist/market economy— and,
having succeeded within that context, prove ourselves superior.
</p>
<p>
Probably strongest argument against generalizing open source is that
free (gratis) software hinges upon the negligible cost of duplicating it.
No doubt, a key to free software's success is the ease with which software
can be copied: It costs essentially nothing to duplicate one's efforts.
That fact formed the context which has allowed a community to start,
to thrive, and ultimately, to meet its own needs.
</p>
<sup><a href="https://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf" title="p39">[2]</a></sup>
Motivation:
A solution to climate change
Less work
Better, more repairable goods
Power is in the hands of the giver
Probably not going to produce F350's and hand
them out to just anybody
More ameniable to the average person
Less work
Work is characterized by "hobby projects"
Income equality (roughly speaking)
Implicit Meritocracy
Those who have proved their trustworthiness are
given greater power
Question: But I wouldn't build something for someone else to have it!
Response: Sure you would, if you wanted them to have it! For instance, you'd
be very interested in building a factory promising to produce free solar panels.
<div class="aside-left">
<h4>Aside:</h4>
<p>
It is the responsibility of the organization to organize
said tools and materials.
</p>
</div>
-->
<div id="nav_bar_2" class="nav">
<ul>
<li><a href="#introduction">Introduction </a></li>
<li><a href="#gift-economies">Gift Economies</a></li>
<li><a href="#reality-check">Reality Check(s)</a></li>
<li><a href="#nonprofits">Nonprofits</a></li>
<li><a href="#many-small-projects">Many Small- / Medium-Sized Projects</a></li>
<li><a href="#faq">FAQ</a></li>
<li><a href="#jordan-peterson">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</a></li>
<li><a href="#references"> References </a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="introduction" class="content">
<h1>Generalizing Open Source</h1>
<p>
Within the context of software development, open collaboration has allowed
a community to start, thrive, and ultimately, to meet its own needs.
A network of nonprofits is the vehicle
</p>
</div>
<div class="content" id="gift-economies">
<h2>Gift Economies</h2>
<p>
The open source community can be viewed as a
gift economy: It is characterized by giving things
away rather than charging for them.
By and large, nothing is expected in return for the labor put into
free software. Still, programmers have to eat, which is one
reason that many projects are hobby projects.
</p>
<p>
In a capitalist society, to which we all belong, one says "Thank You"
with money. If, for instance, your plumber did their job, you pay them,
and everyone walks away. In a gift economy, one says "Thank You" by
giving back, by contributing in some way.
</p>
<p>
We do not require everyone to be "on board" or to be contributors.
Our goal is our own satisfaction, not to be altruistic.
</p>
<p>
Note that for a gift economy to exist at all, property rights must
be preserved: If it's not yours, after all, how can you give it away?
I bring this up because a defining feature of the communist ideal is
the absence of ownership, and I wish to make it clear that this is not
a pursuit of that ideal.
</p>
<p>
This is not socialism, either. The open source ecosystem is a
characterized by loosely associated projects, with no central authority
existing (or even desired).
<p>
<p>
This is different: It is an attempt to extend what is known to work in
some contexts to other contexts, where it has never been tried.
Like the open-source community, my overarching goal is a community
satisfying its own needs through mutual gifts.
</p>
<h3>See Also:</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.linux.com/news/gift-economy-and-free-software/">The gift economy and free software</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="content" id="nonprofits">
<h2>Nonprofits</h2>
<p>
For generalizing the way open source works, I believe the appropriate vehicle
is the nonprofit organization.
Understand that a nonprofit is merely a business whose mission
supports donations (both to the organization and by the organization)
and volunteerism.
Contrast this with a corporation, whose mission (profit, typically for
shareholders) renders donations and volunteerism
non-starters.
</p>
<p>
A nonprofit is a "business" in the sense that it must remain cash-positive to
continue existing.
That is to say, a nonprofit organization that takes in less money
than it spends will cease to exist.
</p>
<p>
The goal is this: Create an organization with an ameneable goal,
and offset costs by accepting material donations and volunteer efforts.
</p>
</div>
<div class="content" id="small-medium-sized">
<h2>Many Small and Medium-Sized Projects</h2>
<p>
This generalization of the open source method of production
steers as far from communism
(otherwise known as "Death by Beaurocracy") as possible.
Notably, it is (systemically) non-centrally planned, and
nothing is owned by the state (or otherwise communally).
Rather, the motivation to start a project would come from the users
(citizens) themselves, and would, generally, take the form of,
"We ought to have _________."
</p>
<p>
My goal is to thrive within the current economy, and in virtue of that
success to prove the method superior; my goal is not to forcibly reject
a way of life that, itself, works.
For, I do not argue that the market economy
</p>
<p>
It seems natural that our generalization of open source should
be composed of many small, independant, cooperating projects,
emulating the success of the
"bazaar" model of modern open-source.
</p>
<p>
The first good reason to avoid large projects is that
one large, all-inclusive project would be a commune!
Communism has been explored, and has consistently proved
inferior to the market economy.
</p>
<p>
The second reason to prefer small projects is
to support competition;
many small (read: competing) projects fosters competition more than
a few large ones.
</p>
<p>
Third, a cacophany of projects implicitly compartmentalizes failure.
That is, the failure of one (smallish) project would not significantly
affect the whole.
By continually stripping away that which does not work (for whatever
reason), what will be
left will be a healthy economy.
</p>
<p>
We will not attempt to describe the internal organization of
projects, as there are many potentially successful organizations.
To us outsiders of a given project, it is only relevant what
the project is producing, and what it is asking of us.
</p>
<p>
I'm not talking about soup kitchens here, and I'm not talking about
picking up garbage from the side of the road.
I'm talking about real, tangible goods with definite value for their
recipients.
People will be kept motivated by projects that they want to see succeed—
things like, .
</p>
<p>
People are willing to work for things they want, when they want them:
This, if anything, is the greatest lesson from open source.
Give people the means to work for themselves,
and they will— when they want to.
The declaration of intent to start a new organization will probably
be of the form, "The community ought to have xxxxxx."
</p>
<h3>See Also:</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/through-mutual-aid-this-farm-is-taking-on-food-insecurity-in-new-york-city">Through Mutual Aid, This Farm Is Taking On Food Insecurity in New York City</a></li>
<li><a href="https://opencollective.com/rpfreestore">Rogers Park Free Store</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yaktrinews.com/news/national-news/california-moves-to-cap-insulin-cost-at-30-start-manufacturing-naloxone/article_cb97fc65-bb07-5a2d-9189-6b44cacce2b4.html">California moves to cap insulin cost at $30</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
international postal service."<sup><a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-fragments-of-an-anarchist-anthropology">[2]</a></sup>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" id="reality-check">
<h2>Reality Check(s)</h2>
<div class="aside-right">
<h4>Aside:</h4>
<p>
This list should be exhaustive, so if you think you've got a
caveat or gotcha not listed here, email me!
</p>
</div>
<p>
If we extend open source's modality to non-software goods and services,
then we should expect all the caveats and gotcha's present in open source
to be present in our generalization as well.
Here we enumerate them.
</p>
<p>
Open source software is consistently behind the cutting edge.
For example, we did not enter the Unix Wars except very late in the game,
and even then our principal function was to "mop up", not to compete.
As another example, while we will create a respectable phone operating
system (one day), we are already well behind the ball on the task.
This is not anyone's fault, and I am not suggesting that we need a
phone operating system; I am only commenting on the state of things as
they stand. A third example is that open-source does not produce
AAA-rated games.
</p>
<p>
This first caveat is worth pondering, for its implications.
For example, it could easily be the case that you are gifted cloth,
and be expected to sew clothing out of it. Along the same lines, the
highly processed foods that are staples of the American diet will
either be forgotten entirely, or at least be absent for several years
after the start of this alternative. It is my opinion that successfully
extending open source's way of working will imply a substantial
technological step backward for its participants, at least initially;
that is not to say that it would be unliveable, and it is not to say
that it could not prove superior in the long term.
</p>
<p>
A second caveat is a corollary to the first: Expect a long, protracted
era of, "It works, kind of...",
In the case of a "free society", this would mean that the existant
projects field a subsistence living for its participants,
and not much more. There is a substantial danger here, if the existant
society does not field goods (e.g., tractors, computers) required for
its prosperity.
</p>
<p>
Usually reactionary, not "proactive".
A good capitalist goes out of their way to try to solve your
problems for you— and thereby sell you something new;
there won't be that, save the community you belong to.
</p>
</div>
<div class="content" id="faq">
<h2>FAQ</h2>
<div class="aside-right">
<h4>Aside:</h4>
<p>
Open source is an example of anarchy, not communism.
</p>
</div>
What is your goal?
1) Extend/generalize it RESPONSIBLY
2) Show/demonstrate an alternative is feasible
3) Not play the blame game (or the "he said she said" game, for that matter.)
4) Also, incidentally, not to ruin it by automating everything
<p>
<b>Question:</b> Is this communism?<br>
<b>Answer:</b> No.
Under this method, the "means of production" are not
owned by the state, nor are they owned communally.
Rather, they are owned by organizations (specifically, nonprofits),
which bear the responsibility of tending them. This is very
similar (indeed, only slightly different from) the current organization
of things (in which the "means of production" are owned and managed
by corporations).
</p>
<p>
<b>Question:</b> Then what's different?<br>
<b>Answer:</b>
Rather than seeking profits, organizations
would seek to give away as much as possible.
They do so by systematically producing and gifting goods
to the people and organizations that need them.
</p>
<p>
<b>Question:</b> Do you support a workers' revolution?<br>
<b>Answer:</b> No.
I don't believe in revolution, and the reason is strictly pragmatic:
Revolution is a good way to make a big fat mess of things.
Rather, I believe in the slow and careful rethinking of things,
with a focus on sustainability and an eye towards long-term
wealth generation.
</p>
<p>
<b>Question:</b> Won't this stir a revolution?<br>
<b>Answer:</b> No.
Imagine for a moment that the cost of Ramen Noodles dropped to zero,
overnight. What effect would that have? Would people start hoarding
noodles? Sure, but only to an extent. Ramen noodles, while perfectly
capable of keeping an individual from starving, are not especially
desirable to eat, especially long-term. No, the effect would be minor
at best. This is the sort of change that we seek to
catalyze.
</p>
<p>
<b>Question:</b> What about cooperatives?<br>
<b>Answer:</b>
A cooperative is an organization owned by its workers, and so
represents a restructuring of the ownership of the organization.
Since the workers (whom are also the owners) seek their own best
interests— in the form of profits— it is not fundamentally
different from corporate management, and thus not of interest to us.
</p>
<p>
<b>Question:</b> Isn't this a bit of a dream?<br>
<b>Answer:</b> Well, yes...
But it's a dream that has been broken down into manageable parts,
and ought therefore be realizable.
</p>
</div>
<div class="content" id="jordan-peterson">
<h2 style="margin-bottom: 0">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</h2>
<h4>The World is Not Ending | Bjørn Lomborg</h4>
<iframe class="video" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOkRJb4UbPM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
<div class="content" id="references">
<h2>References</h2>
<ol>
<li>Raymond, Eric S. <em>Homesteading the Noosphere</em> Retrieved September 7, 2022, from <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/index.html">http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/index.html</a></li>
<li>Graeber, D. (2004) <em>Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology.</em> The University of Chicago Press.</em></li>
<li>Gelderloos, P. (2015). <em>Anarchy works.</em> Ak Press.</li>
</ol>
</div>