Voluntary Software

[Alex Libman]

Hai.  I'm wondering if any agorists / voluntaryists here share my opinion about computer software philosophy, which I've ranted about in great detail on the FSP and FTL forums (and elsewhere).

A lot of libertarians seem to like free / libre / open source software (FLOSS), but everyone seems to ignore (or simply fail to notice) the socialist culture that dominates that movement, and particularly their willingness to utilize government force for their benefit.  I believe that the FLOSS movement is past due for a schism between its more left-wing supporters, who are best represented by Richard M. Stalinman, and a newer more libertarian branch of genuinely free software that calls itself copyFREE (or, less seriously, the "Software Liberation Front").

The main difference between two is licensing: copyLEFT uses government force to virally coerce other people into releasing software under their government-backed license, while copyFREE supporters tend to use minimal licensing (if any) and let the free market in software work itself out without involving the power of the state.  The copyLEFT supporters are also more likely to extend their efforts to lobby for "net neutrality", for government funding / control of IT, against free enterprise, and so forth.

Unfortunately the majority of FLOSS software in use today is copyLEFT, especially on the desktop, including projects like the Linux kernel, GNOME, KDE, Firefox, Java (except Harmony), VLC, and so forth.  Examples of partially or fully copyFREE alternatives include: Haiku OS, UNIX operating systems like FreeBSD / PC-BSD, X11 + Compiz + a number of window managers, the Enlightenment desktop environment, Chrome Web-browser, a myriad of server tools (ex. Apache, SSH, PostgreSQL) and programming languages (ex. LLVM / Clang, Python, JS, PHP, Groovy, Go), IntelliJ IDEA, Ultimate++, etc.

[thinkliberty]

I like copyleft, but without the force of government to maintain it.

You respect my code and I'll respect yours.

If you use my opensource code in a way that I don't like to make a profit from it in an un-FLOSS manor, I'll redistribute *all* your software for free on TPB. 

I think "net neutrality" is a requirement for companies that have a government granted monopoly.

[Alex Libman]

Think about what you're saying.  CopyLEFT w/o government force is not copyLEFT.  Also a lot of proprietary software writers would only thank you for seeding their stuff on TPB / other P2P networks.  As I explain in my threads on the other forums, there are plenty of ways the proprietary software business model can function without the government, but copyLEFT cannot, because the author relinquishes all access control capacity and a "license" text-file / code comment would not constitute a binding contract in absence of government force.

"Net Neutrality" is an Orwellian-named government power-grab to turn the Internet into the 21st century version of Pravda.  First it will expand FCC-like powers to the Internet, then it will encroach further into "Search Neutrality", "Social Networking Neutrality", "Fairness Doctrine", and so forth...

[thinkliberty]

"Net Neutrality" is an Orwellian-named government power-grab

Net neutrality keeps government granted monopolies from turning the internet in to a corporate power-grab, with protection from the state.

Then it will encroach further into "Search Neutrality", "Social Networking Neutrality", "Fairness Doctrine",

This is a slippery slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Lex]

I favor the Apache license in any projects I undertake.

Or closed source. Depending on what I'm doing.

[Lex]

If you use my opensource code in a way that I don't like to make a profit from it in an un-FLOSS manor, I'll redistribute *all* your software for free on TPB.

Then why did you open source it?

[thinkliberty]

Then why did you open source it?

Because I like sharing and I want to contribute to a sharing community.

If you use my code you need to share back, if you don't want to share, don't use my code.

If you decide to use my code without sharing, then I will share your stuff for you.

I'll respect your work, if you respect mine...

[Lex]

I think before this subject can be discussed as it relates to software. First there has to be some agreement about whether there is even such a thing is intellectual property.

How can you share your ideas and still own them?

[Lex]

Here is a list of articles on the subject from mises to help you think about it:

http://blog.mises.org/1771/intellectual-property-at-mises-org/

[Lex]

The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property (by David Koepsell) 
The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property (by David Koepsell)

[Alex Libman]

Net neutrality keeps government granted monopolies from turning the internet in to a corporate power-grab, with protection from the state.

If that were all there was to it, it would still be a crutch that the government gives you after it breaks your legs beforehand.  Accepting that crutch is a PR benefit to the state, and will empower it to break a lot more legs in the future.

You can get around government-granted "monopolies" by using things like satellite Internet, wireless P2P meshing, locally owned connectivity infrastructure (which is particularly relevant in New Hampshire), and so forth.  You cannot get around the government shutting down your ISP because it wasn't "neutral" enough!

This is a slippery slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

So are all arguments against sticking your head inside a lion's mouth!  My slippery slope argument is backed by deductive plausibility analysis, some of the commies' stated intentions, and prior history in regard to other forms of censorship imposed in various parts of the world.

I favor the Apache license in any projects I undertake.

Someone once joked that the Apache license was the BSD / MIT license translated by a lawyer concerned about his job security.  I'll have to take that person's word for it, because I'm at least smart enough to know that it's written in a language I don't understand - not English, but "legalese".  I used to be pretty good with obfuscated C, but who knows what maliciousness one can inject into a software license...  For example, I still don't know whether Perl is copyFREE software or not, because of the mind-numbing artsiness of its license...

Thus I think the simplest / shortest license is best.  "Public domain" would be ideal if it wasn't for some foreign governments not recognizing it, which can cause a lot of headaches for some users, so a license like ISC (which is even simpler than MIT / BSD, and is taken more seriously than WTFPL) is the simplest way to give away free software.

Or closed source. Depending on what I'm doing.

Same here.

If you use my code you need to share back, if you don't want to share, don't use my code.

So if you throw a dollar with a "license" scribbled on it from an airplane, and I end up picking it up and putting it in my wallet, now my whole wallet belongs to you? 

[...]  If you decide to use my code without sharing, then I will share your stuff for you.  [...]

It is your right to do whatever you wish with the 1's and 0's on your computer (unless of course you've signed an explicit contract saying otherwise).  You want to pirate proprietary software, fine, knock yourself out, regardless of whether that software leveraged any FLOSS code or not.

But why use copyLEFT licenses?  In doing so you only empower the state!  A license is not a communique of persuasion, which you can put in a readme file or the project's Web-site, a license is force!  If someone initiates a legal proceeding to enforce GPL, who pays for it if not the victims of taxation?  What happens if the defendant ignores the government subpoena, and all subsequent correspondence from the state?  What happens if he refuses to open the door to the armed thugs that will come after him?

[...]  First there has to be some agreement about whether there is even such a thing is intellectual property.  [...]

There definitely is such a thing as intellectual property - you own yourself and the consequences of your actions, including the thoughts in your head (to the degree to which you are able to utilize them) and your information-based creative works.  If someone walks up to you with a magnet and erases the contents of your smart-phone without your permission, that person has initiated aggression against you.  If someone breaks into your computer and makes it do bad things against your will, then that person is responsible.  If someone plagiarizes your work, then they may be committing fraud.  Etc.

All of those are Negative Rights that are as rational as all other Rights of individual self-ownership.  An alleged aspect of "intellectual property" that doesn't exist, however, is the "positive right" to impose artificial scarcity for your benefit through government force!

[Lex]

There definitely is such a thing as intellectual property - you own yourself and the consequences of your actions, including the thoughts in your head (to the degree to which you are able to utilize them) and your information-based creative works.  If someone walks up to you with a magnet and erases the contents of your smart-phone without your permission, that person has initiated aggression against you.  If someone breaks into your computer and makes it do bad things against your will, then that person is responsible.  If someone plagiarizes your work, then they may be committing fraud.  Etc.

What does owning yourself and the consequences of your actions have to do with intellectual property.

Someone erasing the contents on your phone is doing physical damage to your physical property. Has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property.

If someone breaks into your computer they are doing physical harm to your physical property.

Plagiarism is only bad if you believe in intellectual property. If you don't believe in the existence of intellectual property then plagiarism similarly cannot existent. If you don't own your idea than how can you claim someone else has taken it from you.

Alex, do you believe that ideas can be owned?

[thinkliberty]

If that were all there was to it, it would still be a crutch that the government gives you after it breaks your legs beforehand.  Accepting that crutch is a PR benefit to the state, and will empower it to break a lot more legs in the future.

You can get around government-granted "monopolies" by using things like satellite Internet...

Satellite internet providers have a government granted monopoly.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here. You believe in government-granted monopolies having rights, I don't.

My slippery slope argument is backed by

Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, it's only backed by your imagination. You lose.

If you use my code you need to share back, if you don't want to share, don't use my code.

So if you throw a dollar with a "license" scribbled on it from an airplane, and I end up picking it up and putting it in my wallet, now my whole wallet belongs to you? 

You are comparing digital objects with physical objects. They don't work the same way. Try again.

If you take my digital dollar (under the condition that you have to allow people to copy what you put in it) and put it in your digital wallet and sell it. Then I will make a digital copy of your wallet and distribute it for free.

[...]  If you decide to use my code without sharing, then I will share your stuff for you.  [...]

It is your right to do whatever you wish with the 1's and 0's on your computer (unless of course you've signed an explicit contract saying otherwise).  You want to pirate proprietary software, fine, knock yourself out, regardless of whether that software leveraged any FLOSS code or not.

But why use copyLEFT licenses?  In doing so you only empower the state!  A license is not a communique of persuasion, which you can put in a readme file or the project's Web-site, a license is force!  If someone initiates a legal proceeding to enforce GPL, who pays for it if not the victims of taxation?  What happens if the defendant ignores the government subpoena, and all subsequent correspondence from the state?  What happens if he refuses to open the door to the armed thugs that will come after him?

It only empowers the state, if I use the state to protect my license. I don't plan on doing that. If you use the state to come after me then, I have protection from your aggression.

It's self-defense.

[Alex Libman]

[...]   Someone erasing the contents on your phone is doing physical damage to your physical property.  [...]

Semantics over whether electrical charge is "physical damage" might be a matter for another thread.

Plagiarism is only bad if you believe in intellectual property.

I said that plagiarism may be fraud.  If you sell me a fake Picasso painting or arsenic disguised as regular lemonade then you are committing fraud.  Whether fraud constitutes aggression is an on-going libertarian debate even amongst the Anarcho-Capitalists.

Alex, do you believe that ideas can be owned?

Of course.  If Person A knows a secret that is valuable to Person B, then Person A can sell it to Person B.  Person B hacking into Person A's network to obtain this information for free would be theft.  Person A can require Person B to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as one of the conditions for the sale of information, and if Person B violates that agreement then Person A can have his pound of flesh, so to speak, but no one can do anything against Person C, D, and Z who obtained leaked copies without entering into an explicit NDA.  Once a secret is leaked, its value drops to pretty much zero.

Satellite internet providers have a government granted monopoly.

That depends on your definition of the word "monopoly".  If the government artificially limits the satellite providers' market access so that you as a consumer have only one choice, then it is indeed a "monopoly" in strictest sense.  Conversely, pretty much every business would fit the loosest definition of the word "monopoly", because it benefits from artificial scarcity created from some potential competitors being unwilling to get a business license, follow regulations, and pay taxes to the state.

I don't know how strict satellite Internet regulations are - I may have to withdraw it from my list of examples, but other examples of viable Internet access alternatives remain.

[...]  You believe in government-granted monopolies having rights  [...]

Um, wow...  That accusation is random, baseless, and obviously inaccurate.  You, on the other hand, seem to believe in government-granted monopolies having legitimate responsibilities (ex. "net neutrality"), which in the minds of many goes a long way to legitimizing their existence.

Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, it's only backed by your imagination. You lose.

You've completely failed to address my point.  It seems that you are a part of a popular new trend of people who've learned to identify common logical fallacies via Wikipedia, and believe that this alone qualifies them for logical debate.  All potential dangers exist only in imagination before they exist in fact.  In trying to prevent bad things from happening, imagination is a very valid means of anticipating plausible risks.

You are comparing digital objects with physical objects. They don't work the same way.

I know, and the difference between physical and digital objects only works in favor of my argument.  If you cannot even prove that an implicit contract (ex "license") exists in transferring of possession of a scarce object, how can you claim that such a contract exists for an object that can be copied without cost or limit?

An example pertaining to information would be me putting a post-it note on my forehead that says "LICENSE: by seeing my face you agree to only remember / reproduce / reference it under the following conditions"...

If you take my digital dollar (under the condition [...]

I can process information without accepting the conditions they claim to impose, just as you can see my face without accepting the "license" written on the post-it note on my forehead.  Of course the government can make any arbitrary "face licensing" laws it wants, but that post-it note would not be recognized as a contract in any system of jurisprudence that is based on reason.

If you use the state to come after me then, I have protection from your aggression.

That's precisely what a copyFREE license is, protection against the government's bullshit (most notably the "implied warranty" - that's what the upper-cased part of the BSD / MIT / ISC licenses is for).  The Apache License goes all out in "protecting" against (and thus, in a way, legitimizing) a number of other possible issues as well.  The copyLEFT license is completely different - its purpose is to attack the free market in software, and impose its socialistic model by force.

It's self-defense.

The purpose of self-defense is defense, and the purpose of justice is restitution - not reciprocity of violence.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  A justice system based on "eye for an eye", if applied literally, would leave the whole world blind.  That is precisely what copyLEFT is doing - legitimizing the very mechanisms that are used by the likes of RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.

[thinkliberty]

Satellite internet providers have a government granted monopoly.

That depends on your definition of the word "monopoly". 

Fact: Cable and phone companies that provide internet have a monopoly granted to them by the local government. They were given federal government money to create those networks. Wireless providers have a national monopoly on the frequency they use to provide the internet.

Do you disagree?

[...]  You believe in government-granted monopolies having rights  [...]

You, on the other hand, seem to believe in government-granted monopolies having legitimate responsibilities (ex. ), , which in the minds of many goes a long way to legitimizing their existence

If they give up their government granted monopoly, then they have no responsibility. They are illegitimate to begin with. That's why they have no rights.

Internet companies that do not have government granted monopolies have an advantage. (ex. no "net neutrality")

You want to let government granted monopolies have their cake and eat it too. I don't.

Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, it's only backed by your imagination. You lose.

You've completely failed to address my point.

You've completely failed to present a valid point. You dismiss the middle ground that can exist and point to your imagination as confirmation bias.

You are comparing digital objects with physical objects. They don't work the same way.

I know, and the difference between physical and digital objects only works in favor of my argument.  If you cannot even prove that an implicit contract (ex "license") exists in transferring of possession of a scarce object, how can you claim that such a contract exists for an object that can be copied without cost or limit?

That has nothing to do with software. The difference between physical and digital objects only works in favor of your STRAW MAN argument. We are talking about software... So your difference between physical and digital objects doesn't exist.

If you take my digital dollar (under the condition [...]

An example pertaining to information would be me putting a post-it note on my forehead that says "LICENSE: by seeing my face you agree to only remember / reproduce / reference it under the following conditions"...

I can process information without accepting the conditions they claim to impose, just as you can see my face without accepting the "license" written on the post-it note on my forehead.  Of course the government can make any arbitrary "face licensing" laws it wants, but that post-it note would not be recognized as a contract in any system of jurisprudence that is based on reason.

Go slap a post-it note on your face with a license. I will laugh at you.

It only empowers the state, if I use the state to protect my license. I don't plan on doing that.

Without the state your license has no functional value what-so-ever.

Without someone using the state to aggress against me no license is needed, so it doesn't need to have a functional value with out the state. That's a great license!

If you use the state to come after me then, I have protection from your aggression.

That's precisely what a copyFREE license is, protection against the government's bullshit (most notably the "implied warranty" - that's what the upper-cased part of the BSD / MIT / ISC licenses is for).  The Apache License goes all out in "protecting" against (and thus, in a way, legitimizing) a number of other possible issues as well.  The copyLEFT license is completely different - its purpose is to attack the free market in software, and impose its socialistic model by force.

All licenses are socialistic. Even copyFREE licenses.

It's self-defense.

The purpose of self-defense is defense, and the purpose of justice is restitution - not reciprocity of violence.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  A justice system based on "eye for an eye", if applied literally, would leave the whole world blind.  That is precisely what copyLEFT is doing - legitimizing the very mechanisms that are used by the likes of RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.

[/quote]

Defense is the purpose of copyLEFT. I like the GPL v3.

I'll only use it to counter-sue you in self-defense, if you try to sue me for distributing your software -- while you are distributing my software.