Counterproductive goals (was Re: code vetting)

[Edward Elliott]

Apologies to the group for getting so OT here.  Thanks for your indulgence.


Ben Finney wrote:
>> I think both your goal and his (spreading free software at the
>> expense of non-free) are counterproductive.
> 
> Huh? A goal is counterproductive? By what do you measure
> "counterproductive", if not the goal?

I'm measuring against the implicit goal of producing useful software from a
functional perspective.  I assumed all projects followed that goal, but I
suppose Hurd is a counterexample to that.  Regardless, I should have said
"can be counterproductive".  Both goals can coexist.  But I would argue
that focusing on the functional goal does more in the end to gain and help
users than many of the more direct attempts to spread free software.  In
that sense, the tactics undertaken to explicitly further a goal can
actually hurt achievement of the goal itself.


>> Often it's a combination.  A successful project should focus on
>> discovering and meeting its users' needs.
> 
> Again, success is measured by the goal. My goal is to increase the
> freedom of software users.

That's fine.  But if we're talking about the software world at large, or
even the open source world at large, many do not share that goal.  The
closest we can get to a universal goal, and hence the most representative 
way to measure success, is with a functional approach.  You are free to
measure things differently, but it's not a conversation a lot people would
care about.


>> Spreading open source for its own sake helps no one.
> 
> Increasing the freedom of software users helps all software users,
> except those who want that freedom restricted.

I repeat: spreading open source for its own sake helps no one.  Open
source != freedom.  You can access Sun's Java source and even Microsoft's
Windows source under certain conditions.  Access to the source gives you
nothing.  To borrow from Agent Smith: What good is a phone call if you're
unable to speak?

Now maybe you're thinking of open source as an OSI-approved license.  That's
a different statement which jives more with your contention that increasing
freedom helps all software users.  I'd say it depends how you define
freedom and helps.  Regardless, I'll relax my statement that it helps no
one and agree that some people benefit in some situations.  Maybe it's a
lot, maybe it's a little; I don't want to quibble over quantifying it.

I'm not disagreeing with your basic philosophy.  Free software brings a
number of benefits.  Both the BSD and the GNU camps have laudable goals and
do some fantastic work.  Where I part company is in thinking those
approaches are inherently superior or should/will become widespread.  To
each his own.  In the current discussion about universal benefits of
transparency, the fact that different groups have different goals is highly
relevant.