Linus Torvalds owns Linux. Eric Raymond owns Fetchmail. A committee owns Apache. Under an open source license anyone is free to modify the code any way he likes, provided that he makes the source code to his modified version public, thus keeping it open source. But programmers want to all work on the same code base so that each can take advantage of improvements made by the others. If Torvalds rejects your improvements to Linux, you are still free to use them – but don’t expect any help. Everyone else will be working on his version. Thus ownership of a project – the ability to decide what goes into the code base – is a property right enforced entirely by private action.
[...] The open source movement is simply a new variation on the system under which most of modern science was created. Programmers create software; scholars create ideas. Ideas, like open source programs, can be used by anyone. The source code, the evidence and arguments on which the ideas are based, is public information. An article that starts out “The following theory is true, but I won’t tell you why” is unlikely to persuade many readers.
Scientific theories do not have owners in quite the sense that open source projects do, but at any given time in most fields there is considerable agreement as to what the orthodox body of theory is. Scholars can choose to ignore that consensus, but if they do, their work is unlikely to be taken seriously. Apache’s owner is a committee. Arguably neoclassical economics belongs to a somewhat larger committee. A scholar can defy the orthodoxy to strike out his own; some do. Similarly, if you don’t like Linux, you are free to start your own open source operating system project based on your variant of it. Heretical ideas sometimes succeed and open source projects are sometimes successfully forked but, in both cases, the odds are against it.
Tratto da Future Imperfect di David Friedman
Linus Torvalds owns Linux. Eric Raymond owns Fetchmail. A committee owns Apache. Under an open source license anyone is free to modify the code any way he likes, provided that he makes the source code to his modified version public, thus keeping it open source. But programmers want to all work on the same code base so that each can take advantage of improvements made by the others. If Torvalds rejects your improvements to Linux, you are still free to use them – but don’t expect any help. Everyone else will be working on his version. Thus ownership of a project – the ability to decide what goes into the code base – is a property right enforced entirely by private action.






10 Responses to “Open source”
Benvenuto nel mondo dell’open source a te e a Friedman…
Spero solo che pronunci correttamente “source”…
Ah, il kernel linux è esattamente la storia di come un eretico abbia “sfidato” e vinto il progetto di kernel hurd della FSF…
penso che friedman ci sia da qualche annetto sull’open source, tipo da quando è nato.
essendo tutto fuorchè una roba da socialisti
Non sono sicuro di capire che cosa sta cercando di dire. Che l’open source non è comunismo? Che le idee non sono tutte uguali? Che i monopoli sono difficili da contrastare?
ho estrapolato questi due pezzi dal capitolo nel quale parla dell’open source perché mi sembravano interessanti.
nella prima parte spiega in modo molto sintetico come funziona, nella seconda fa un parallelismo con la ricerca scientifica.
E quindi col comunismo c’entra ben poco… È come chiedersi se la doccia è di destra o di sinistra.
@ Leppie : Fare il bagno nella vasca, e’ di destra
far la doccia invece e’ di sinistra. (G.Gaber)
Dai, questa era troppo facile, non vale.
io infatti mi faccio la doccia nella vasca da bagno
E quindi sei dell’IdV…
O un poveraccio come me che non ha i soldi per rifarsi il bagno.
“E quindi sei dell’IdV…”
attento che sei vicino al ban perpetuo!!!