[Warning: Long Post] I realize this is belated, and am sure that everyone is weary of this discussion, but since I have patiently read and considered the remarks of everyone else on these subjects, I would like the opportunity to add my own observations - just for the record. On OSS: This discussion began as an evaluation of the 'worthiness' of OSS - with particular regard to professional audio production. It appeared to be Pete's premise that since various open-source tools he has worked with have failed to meet his particular needs, it is therefore questionable that OSS can meet anyone else's pro-audio needs, and further, calls into question the value of OSS as a whole. There seems to be an implicit suggestion that if various OSS tools do not match or exceed the performance of proprietary ones, or if OSS is not going to supplant commercial software - then perhaps it should just be abandoned - as though this were a war, and one must choose sides. Each of us has unique needs. If there were a one-size-fits-all solution, there would not already be many different commercial solutions, as well as open-source ones. There is certainly room for all, and people should have a choice. Feeling compelled to consign OSS, RMS and the Torah into the ideological trash bin sounds like a philosophical crisis. To move beyond ideologies, methodologies, and idolatries that no longer serve one is a wise thing, and it is the hallmark of a mature soul that they are able to tread their own path according to their own conscience without feeling the need to compel others to either share their beliefs or tread that path alongside them. OSS came into being simply because existing commercial software was not meeting the needs of many, and alternatives needed to be created. Some of these needs included having greater freedom as to how to use programs, the license to modify and develop them, and the ability to acquire and distribute them at little or no monetary cost. Some of us desire greater choice and to have more control over our programs and how we use them, as well as having access to software features that existing commercial software does not offer. OSS is filling those needs for the segment of the population we represent. Can OSS exceed the quality and performance of commercial software? Of course it can. In some cases it will and in others it will not, and the judgement as to when it does so will always be an individual and subjective one. There will also be open-source programs developed for which there do not exist any commercial equivalents - in which case, the open-source world will be motivating and driving development in the commercial one. This provides more choices for us all and keeps proprietary development from stagnating - since they are forced to remain competitive - and this is good for everyone. On Copyright and Morality: I find it absurd to discuss morality and law in the same breath, as though they are somehow equivalent. Morality is first and foremost subjective, and secondly it is innate. You can neither teach nor legislate it. (Yes, you can use behavioral modification to train your dog not to attack your visitors, but that does not mean you have ingrained in them a moral ethos.) Anyone who has reached the stage of being an individualized, self-conscious human being already has an internalized sense of 'right and wrong'. They are aware of what is in their own self-interest and what is in the interest of the rest of humanity, as well as the planet itself, and they realize that those interests are interlinked and inseparable. They seek to 'do no harm' because they recognize that harm inflicted on their fellow man, or on the earth which sustains them, harms them as well - and it simply 'feels' wrong. I find it equally absurd to claim that 'copyleft' could not exist without 'copyright' - you might just as well claim that copyright exists because of copyleft or any other right. A 'right' is simply claimed and then defended. I can claim I have the 'right' to rule the world, and if I can defend that 'right' through fiscal might and force of arms - then I do. I can also claim the right to be free, but unless I am able to succesfully defend that right - I do not have it. This discussion has foundered by muddling the concept of moral right - in the sense of a (sometimes commonly held) view of 'right and wrong' - which is an abstract concept, with the concept of legal right - which is concrete to the extent that it is enforceable within a social collective. Something can be a legal right - such as apartheid, and yet be morally reprehensible, while there are countless moral rights which are not legal ones - at least not universally so. Laws are made for the benefit of the state, not the individual. They exist to insure the continuance of the state - its power, control and wealth - and to reward and extend privileges and favor to its patrons - the rich and powerful aristocracy-corporatocracy-plutocracy - whatever you want to call that class of human society. They certainly do not exist to enforce moral behavior on societal members, although they may be cloaked in 'moral' terms to increase the likelihood of their general acceptance and compliance. States can, and invariably do, solicit, encourage, subsidize and even legislate extremely antisocial and 'immoral' behavior when it serves their requirements for continuation or expansion of their power and control. An individual cannot benefit by state - statutory - 'copyright' law unless they have the financial means and/or societal standing and political clout to pursue the legal remedies available to enforce it. Except in rare instances, only powerful corporations such as exist within the publishing and recording industries, are able to utilize these laws on their own behalf to intimidate and punish those who threaten to cut into their profits. The lowly artist or programmer would likely find it extremely difficult, as well as prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, to attempt a defense of their copyright, and in most cases, will either be oblivious to the fact of a copyright violation, choose not to pursue it, or at best, accept some pittance of an out-of-court settlement. This is the *real* world we're talking about here - not utopia. Copyright is an appeal to the legal sanctions of the state to uphold a legislated 'right'. Copyleft is - in essence - an appeal to the (moral) conscience of others to utilize the creative of work of another in an ethical way, and consider voluntary remuneration of its creator. (I know the 'remuneration' part has nothing specifically to do with copyleft, but it is nevertheless an implicit aspect of the entire thought system from which copyleft arose.) On remumerating open-source authors: It is certainly not fair that musicians, artists, programmers, writers, and other producers of creative works and inventions find it so difficult to receive appropriate remuneration for their efforts - let alone be able to make a livelihood from them. It is an utter travesty that so many people will think nothing of spending $25 for a steak dinner, or hundreds for a night on the town, yet balk at spending $15 - $25 for an independently produced CD or an open-source/independently developed software program - the former providing only a transitory diversion - the latter providing a source of lasting enjoyment, or possibly a means to pursue one's own creative work or empower them in the pursuit of their own livelihood. (And yet many of these same people think a large corporation is completely justified in charging hundreds or thousands for a proprietary program.) These attitudes are symptomatic of deep pathologies, imbalances and inequities within modern industrial society, and will require major socio-economic revolution - not to mention evolution - to remedy. When people are deprived of a decent living wage, and on top of that, are compelled to spend so much of what they do make in the form of taxes, compulsory insurance, and other obligatory expenses not of their own choosing - they are understandably reluctant to voluntarily part with the little that remains to them. This has devalued the worth of artistic creation (and I include software and invention in this category). If people were not forced to spend so much of their money against their will on things they do not value, they would be far more able and willing - anxious, in fact - to spend it supporting the things they *do* appreciate and value. And in my view, this is precisely why the continuance of the open-source revolution is so important, regardless of whether people are making money off their creations, or the products are viewed as equal in quality to proprietary ones. The open-source movement, along with the blogosphere and other innovative new forms of social networking and collaboration, are critical elements of the social revolution in progress which will create a new social order - perhaps a true 'global village' - as opposed to a global plantation - holding the potential to remedy the many social inequities which the present one imposes. There is indeed a clash of cultures, of civilizations and values, playing out in our times, and it is up to each of us to exercise our free-will to choose what kind of future we wish to participate in creating and being a part of. For myself, I have already made that choice, and have no doubt as to the ultimate outcome - it is only a matter of time. Pax, Maluvia
