The ideal of open source is promising - common sharing of the production means, to use them according to own needs. It's the communists' dreams come true, in a good sense. Sharing the source code does not use up the original resource, and people can contribute to diversifying and updating the original. And by allowing commercialization of one's own version as well (except the core GNU believers in the tradition of Stallman), the contributers don't have to starve. As it was shown, it worked pretty well on Linux, Mozilla-based web browsers and countless other programs.
However, there is a fundamental limit to the applicability of the open source idea. The first is, that it does not work on areas where the source itself is the commodity. Rhetorically, open source is more like making the ingredients and the recipe public. The competent chef still can sell his skilled menu, or even get more rich and famous for it. However, it would not apply to a book publisher. By making the recipes free for public, he/she is deprived of his selling commodity, thus destined to starve or find another job. There are countless information related jobs that rely on the source as the commodity, such as news journalism. Programmers are more like chefs - their own expertise is the commodity. However, the enterpreneurs have to make money by selling the products, and do not want too many competitors with similar concepts. Then, the problem becomes what should be regarded as commodity and what should not be utilized as them. A hard struggle, in this hyper-modern capitalist world where everything eventually turns into commodities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment