Forgot your password?
Chyist Dec 7, 1998 O
Document Actions
========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:03:59 -0600
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Stephen W. Commiskey" <scommisk@RICHMOND.EDU>
Subject: Re: economics of free software
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Mike Mahoney wrote:
>Inc., a short-lived movement of the early 1930s that proposed to replace money with energy credits. Far from being unthinkable, the notion of
This sounds an odd idea, especially since money essentially represents energy. For example, gold has value because it is rare. It takes a relatively large amount of energy to find and retrieve it. People are paid for their time, which is using their energy to do something. I *could* go to law school, pass the bar, and execute my own legal documents, but it's a far better use of my energy to pay someone else to do it.
Attempting to bring this thread back on topic: The modern version (to my understanding) seeks to replace money with information (as opposed to just data), but that's fundamentally the same thing -- I could find it for myself, but it's more efficient to pay someone else to do it.
Given the coding abilities of most people (and, although I've some skill, I've only taken a few college classes in programming), however, source code is information, rather than data; i.e., it has value to me because I cannot easily make it for myself. The hacker ethic appears to treat source code as data -- a framework that is more valuable as a source for useful things (subroutines, a coding base for larger projects, etc.) than as a useful thing itself. This is not the case for the general public. As much as I may wish to contribute to the open-source community, I lack the necessary ability to do so. Therefore, I am an economic free rider, gaining the benefits without paying any of the costs.
Has anyone participated in thorough discussions on this topic? What is the critical mass of programmer time that makes an open-source project succeed, regardless of the number of free riders? I'd like to hear list members' opinions on this, although I fear it may be too far off the topic of the list. Feel free to email me privately; I'll collect and post any on-topic gems that arise.
Stephen W. Commiskey
University of Mississippi School of Medicine scommisk@richmond.edu (regular correspondence) scommiskey@som.umsmed.edu (files and attachments; checked infrequently)
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Stephen W. Commiskey" <scommisk@RICHMOND.EDU>
Subject: Re: economics of free software
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Mike Mahoney wrote:
>Inc., a short-lived movement of the early 1930s that proposed to replace money with energy credits. Far from being unthinkable, the notion of
This sounds an odd idea, especially since money essentially represents energy. For example, gold has value because it is rare. It takes a relatively large amount of energy to find and retrieve it. People are paid for their time, which is using their energy to do something. I *could* go to law school, pass the bar, and execute my own legal documents, but it's a far better use of my energy to pay someone else to do it.
Attempting to bring this thread back on topic: The modern version (to my understanding) seeks to replace money with information (as opposed to just data), but that's fundamentally the same thing -- I could find it for myself, but it's more efficient to pay someone else to do it.
Given the coding abilities of most people (and, although I've some skill, I've only taken a few college classes in programming), however, source code is information, rather than data; i.e., it has value to me because I cannot easily make it for myself. The hacker ethic appears to treat source code as data -- a framework that is more valuable as a source for useful things (subroutines, a coding base for larger projects, etc.) than as a useful thing itself. This is not the case for the general public. As much as I may wish to contribute to the open-source community, I lack the necessary ability to do so. Therefore, I am an economic free rider, gaining the benefits without paying any of the costs.
Has anyone participated in thorough discussions on this topic? What is the critical mass of programmer time that makes an open-source project succeed, regardless of the number of free riders? I'd like to hear list members' opinions on this, although I fear it may be too far off the topic of the list. Feel free to email me privately; I'll collect and post any on-topic gems that arise.
Stephen W. Commiskey
University of Mississippi School of Medicine scommisk@richmond.edu (regular correspondence) scommiskey@som.umsmed.edu (files and attachments; checked infrequently)
______________________________________________________________________
