Open source: where/how, and general discussion

[tition]

Hi all,

I recently wrote some large piece of code for doing rather specialized mathematical computations (_{in representation theory, if that speaks anything to you; it computes algebraic expressions for the vector partition function, computes hyperplane subdivisions of Euclidean spaces, and will soon compute Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials}).

Now that piece of code is so specialized that is has no commercial value at all, but is in fact invaluable for my own purposes, and could be very useful for a few other people (all of whom I guess would be rather specialized university people).

So, naturally, I want to put my code at some place as open source, so that the these few people could find it easily and eventually use it.

There is a second reason I want put my program in the public. The thing is that one (and a half(!)) of the algorithms in my code are, in my opinion, publishable, and they also compute things in a way other people might have overlooked. So, I want to put my code in some public place so that everyone can see what was written when/by whom, just in case.

So, what would you do?

One last note: my code uses no outside sources - only the std library (partially because I am a bit stubborn and like to write my own stuff, and partially because I was learning to program and was exercising myself). In addition, it has some cool general features: for example a totally custom written library for operations with large rational numbers, template classes for doing polynomials in more than one variable (implemented using the hash table tricks), and a large list of routines to output mathematical formulas to LaTeX format (the one used in mathematical journals). So, although the chance is extremely small (I am not very fond of writing documentation), it is possible that someone non-specialized could use pieces of my code.

Last, just to get a discussion going, what is your opinion on open source?

[Bazzy]

To publish your code try sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/
IMO open source programs are good for many reasons: they are available for free, anyone can modify them for his own needs, they can help you when writing your own stuff, they show how the program really works ...

[z05DSL3A]

+1 for sourceforge.
I would also recommend reading Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing to make sure you release your code with the best possible license. The book is available free from O'Reilly Open Books Project.^[oobp] I like the idea of open source but have found the licensing can be a legal nightmare.

[oobp] http://oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/

[tition]

Thanks for the links! Will get on with the reading :)

So, just to stir up the discussion, what do you think about the statement, "open source is communism"?

[z05DSL3A]

"open source is communism"

More like open source is philanthropy.

[PanGalactic]

More like open source is philanthropy.

Ha! You just haven't seen the government thugs that follow Torvalds around, ensuring he commits his code on a regular basis "for the common good". The gulags of Silicon Valley are filled with coders that tried to claim ownership of their programs.

[helios]

You just haven't seen the government thugs that follow Torvalds around, ensuring he commits his code on a regular basis "for the common good".

I have to say, that sounds quite preposterous.

"open source is communism"

It's the same as the phrase "every time you download an MP3, you're downloading communism." These two phrases are fallacious for two reasons:
1. They assume communism is wrong. I'm as much communist as I am capitalist -- which is to say "not at all" -- but I don't think a system can be deemed wrong. Inadecuate maybe, but not wrong.
2. They assume that information (source code, digitalized music, etc.) has the same properties as material goods.
Remember that communism is an economic system (i.e. a method to manage scarce resources), and information has one big difference with material goods: it's not scarce, but abundant. Except for the electricity and storage it takes to do it, information can be duplicated at no cost; something you obviously cannot do with objects. It's therefore absurd to apply a system designed to deal with scarcity to something that is abundant. If we follow the line of reasoning of these two phrases and take it back to the material world, we can say that

Sharing the atmosphere is communism.

Or, even better (because the atmosphere could possibly become so polluted as to make it unbreathable)

Sharing sunlight is communism.

Totally absurd, as both resources are, at least at the time of writing, abundant.

In case you couldn't tell from the above or just weren't sure, I'm in favor of "piracy". Quoted because that's what our detractors call us, but also what we sometimes call ourselves to spite them. In reality, I'd say I'm against copyright.

[Bazzy]

Open source is quite the opposite of the communism as communism wants equality but no freedom, open source is oriented to freedom but not really equality ( not everyone is able to read or write code )

[Hammurabi]

helios: It's therefore absurd to apply a system designed to deal with scarcity to something that is abundant.

So you believe that programmers and musicians should not be paid?

[helios]

How did you come to that conclusion from that sentence?

A person's time is scarce, and therefore valuable, so any worker deserves to be paid for their time.
I still don't see how you could have drawn that conclusion from any part of my post.

[Hammurabi]

>How did you come to that conclusion from that sentence?

It was just an example sentence.

Your post was all about getting something for free. For example, you imply that you download music for free. (Do you?) You say essentially that if something is simply "information" then you shouldn't have to pay for it. You go on to equate "information" with sunlight.

How can what you said be interpretted otherwise than I did?

[tition]

So you believe that programmers should not be paid? [erased musicians from the quote since I will be commenting only on programmers]

On the contrary. Open source is the best for programmers. Programmers can now work for specific organizations requesting specific software. Any organization would pay programmers to make its specific wishes come true!

That means programmers will be paid even higher, and will not work on reinventing the wheel (i.e. redoing an operating system or a sloppy written text editor).

Instead, they will work on how to customize a system so that a train station manager can save a few clicks and have an extra cup of coffee, or so that a secretary in a university can print transcripts quicker and save her time!

And believe me, no one will force programmers to go open source with their custom high-quality code! They will do it all the same, so that their changes get incorporated in the future versions of the common software!


What open source software is bad for: white collar retail clerks with memorized corporate quotes about "security", "anti-virus protection", "performance", "ease of use"!

[helios]

Your post was all about getting something for free. [...] You say essentially that if something is simply "information" then you shouldn't have to pay for it.

No, but it's easy to get the two confused. I'm saying producers of information shouldn't be able to restrict its distribution, which is the point of copyright (right to copy. Get it?). Whether or not there are distributors who don't charge is a different matter.

Published information (as opposed to private information like, say, your home address) is just like sunlight. Let me give an example:

The whole sky was strewn with them, here and there in concentrations of
unbroken green, elsewhere more sparsely. And they were observed to be moving.
A general drift of the whole celestial population was setting toward one of
the snowy peaks that dominated the landscape. Presently the foremost
individuals reached the mountain's crest, and were seen to be creeping down
the rock-face with a very slow amoeboid action.

That's a random quote from Olaf Stapleton's Last and First Men. You didn't have to become Olaf Stapleton and rewrite the book up until that part to know it. I just copy-pasted the paragraph. Can you do the same with water? 'Course not! Hence, abundance and scarcity.
Now, I could just as well have said "I'll show it to you if you give me $1". If you really wanted to know, you'd have paid it because information is scarce -- and valuable -- while it's unknown. Once I've shown you the quote it's lost all value (unless you forget it, that it). Now, you could go and tell the next person "hey, that guy is selling this for $1, but I'll sell it to you for $0.50." Of course, I would be pissed off. Before, I could charge whatever I wanted for the quote, but now I have a competitor (this is a free market, after all. ...Right?). So now I have to either:
1. Reduce the cost of quoting Stapleton.
2. Increase the value of my quote (by improving its quality which [given my bad example] wuold be misquoting, or providing service after you bought the quote).

And that, my friends, is why copyright exists: to allow companies to produce technically legal monopolies. It's never been about the artist or the programmer or whoever, but the publishers (those who own the rights to produce copies).

[Hammurabi]

Very good points, my friendlies! Thanks for not just getting upset as so many do when their views are probed. That's terrific, and I agree wholeheartedly. I just wanted more explanation.

[That's] why copyright exists: to allow companies to produce technically legal monopolies. It's never been about the artist or the programmer

I just felt that was worth saying again. It would be nice to remove the publishers from the equation, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, the artist/programmer should still get their coin. This requires a new model.

Actually, I've dl'ed quite a bit of music, etc, and not paid for it. Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Alternatively, do you think it would be okay for you to post Stapleton's entire book?

[helios]

It would be nice to remove the publishers from the equation, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, the artist/programmer should still get their coin.

Programmers are paid to write code. They aren't paid for each copy sold of the software they wrote. The same applies to, for example, artists that produce a game's content (music, textures, models, etc.). I'll answer for the rest of artists below.

Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Alternatively, do you think it would be okay for you to post Stapleton's entire book?

No, and yes. And this is my rationale (it's part of a post I made somewhere else, hence the odd numbering):
2. Information is meant to be transferred. There is nothing immoral about copying information.
3. Any true artist would want his creation to be seen/heard/read, even if he doesn't make a dime out of it, because his goal is expression. Anyone who creates anything for the sole purpose of profit deserves that his creation be pirated.

Now, the definition of constitutes "art" and what an "artist" is, is rather subjective, but I'm defining "artist" as someone who produces something that requires creativity (for simplicity, let's assume that such a thing exists), for the sake of itself, and "art" as the product.

[z05DSL3A]

This has been an interesting read, I don't agree with everything that has been said.

No matter how many times I read it, it sound like the free acquisition of of materials is being condoned. "Information is meant to be transferred. There is nothing immoral about copying information", this may be true in part, but surly it is immoral to deny the author of his livelihood? They a paid with royalties from the sale of the books.

Intellectual Property rights (including copyright) exist to give the owner of the rights the say in how the work is 'used' (for want a better word). Even in open source you don't give up your rights.

Side note:
One thing I don't agree with is Patents, probably more specifically software patents. I have the feeling that they where originally meant to help the independent inventors protect their rights, but the large 'free market' companies have perverted the system to such an extent, that it is near impossible for a small company/independent to get such protection, while they file for anything that they think they can get away with.

[helios]

No matter how many times I read it, it sound like the free acquisition of of materials is being condoned. "Information is meant to be transferred. There is nothing immoral about copying information"

Partly because I was trying to counter the argument of piracy==theft, and partly because that's what it is.

"Intellectual property" is a made up concept. Richard Stallman, who I don't agree with on most other subjects, has already written much more than I would have the patience to.

Even in open source you don't give up your rights.

Often.

Are you saying that only patents are abused, but not trademarks or copyright?

EDIT: I just found a good quote by RMS:

What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do exist, their purpose is to provide a public benefit — to promote progress by providing artificial incentives.

They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.

It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress — which has to carry it out on our behalf — takes its orders from Hollywood and Microsoft instead of from us.

[PanGalactic]

Open source software works great for infrastructure software. I don't want to re-invent a message queue in C++ when qpid and activemq exist. I don't want to have to invent my own XML parser, unit test framework, documentation tools, logging systems, widget sets, or what have you. I encourage my team to use the open source tools and libraries, and to spend time, if needed, fixing bugs or adding features that we need.

That said, there's no way we will ever open source our bread & butter software. There are only a handful of folks that would find it useful and most are competitors.

[z05DSL3A]

Are you saying that only patents are abused, but not trademarks or copyright?

No, I wasn't saying that, although I have not given any thought as to how trademark and copyright can be abused. I supose that things like "Just do it"^TM, could be an abuse of the trademark system
What I was saying is that I don't agree with Patents because they are badly abused! As an example, something like MP3. A company Patents that and then small/independent developers can not compete. Larger companies can afford to pay the fees and make it a sort of de facto standard, there should be more Open Standards.

"What the Constitution says is that..." is irrelevant, or only has relevance to the people who's constitution it is. Happily the IP system is a little less messed up in the UK, but could still do with a reform.

If everyone could just agree on Open Standards, I have no problem with companies protecting their implementation of the standard, the world could be a better place.

[helios]

although I have not given any thought as to how trademark and copyright can be abused

For example, by making your users agree to an EULA that states they are basically renting the software from you, with some clauses even going so far as to being unconstitutional, such as some that disallow you from reverse engineering the software*; or by stress-testing the semantics of "copy" (i.e. "let's see how much we can twist it before it breaks").

*I do know that's legal in the US, which is were most software with an EULA comes from. I haven't checked other countries, though.