Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] First American Honoured Open Source Ideas?

__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 17 August 2006 19:39 \__

> 
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1663808.kF3O0gRkot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> The first [open source] American
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Franklin was truly ahead of his time. He wasn't just the first American,
>> | he was the first open source American.
>> |
>> | Freedom. Transparency. Collaboration. Accountability. Sound familiar?
>> | This was how he lived his life and impacted society.
>> `----
>>        http://www.redhat.com/magazine/021jul06/features/ben_franklin/
> 
>     He was also the first male American. And the first American to wear
> spectacles. And the first American who knew how to count to three. In
> itself, this information isn't all that interesting, but it leads one to
> wonder who was the first open source advocate (where the definition of open
> source is obviously expanded to include things other than software).


Okay, I haven't read the entire post yet, but I can't help stopping at the
first paragraph and clarify something. The subject line is probably more
accurate than the article's title. The 'take home' is the realisation that
the root of the American descend (not biologically, of course) would have
preached in favour of Open Source. Open Source as in Open Source life - free
expression, transparency, etc; free journalism, e.g. blogging; and free
software, all in due time. Again (as in the figure of speech regarding Linux
constantly evolving), you seem to be critical of the author's idea because
you approach it from the wrong end.


> <quote>
> Did you know that Franklin formed the first collaborative, intellectual
> American community? Called the Junto (Latin for "meeting") Club, it was
> created in 1727, when Franklin was just 21, to debate the issues of the
> time and to share knowledge on business affairs.
> [...]
> Much of the discussion involved brainstorming publicly beneficial ideas and
> ways to implement them. The collection of books that the group amassed was
> used to establish the first lending library in America. Filled mostly with
> religious and educational volumes, it was an early testament to Franklin's
> love of open knowledge. And it was free (as in book-lending.)
> </quote>
> 
>     Libraries existed as far back as ancient Egypt, but it's not clear
> whether their purpose was to spread information freely, or rather to act as
> the personal archives of the wealthy.


Probably a combination thereof, namely to spread information among the
privilege (wealthy). Access to literature was impeded at the time... classes
and all...


> <quote>
> [Franklin's club] was a community aimed at growth. One of the four
> [questions
> any aspiring member had to answer was, "Do you love truth for truth's sake,
> and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and
> communicate it to others?"
> </quote>
> 
>     I'd imagine just about any philosopher would respond in the affirmative
> to this membership test. "Philosophia" is of course, a Greek term, but it
> is believed that even prehistoric cultures had some school of philosophy
> present. On the one hand, sharing information with your friends seems like
> such a natural concept that one could imagine it predates even humans, with
> primates or earlier life forms sharing their discoveries with each other
> (bees are known to perform a dance to communicate the location of sources
> of honey to other members of their hive, for example). On the other hand,
> it also seems very natural to hide information from your enemies, and
> secrecy behaviour can also be observed in animals.
> 
>     To me, this suggests that it makes sense to open source some things,
>     but not everything, and correspondingly with close source.


I disagree. You made these statements before, encouraging the use of CSS in
governments (funded by the people who elected them). There is rarely (if
ever) a case where secrecy and protection (e.g. IP) is a good thing. It's
all about self interest and imposition of hindrances and barriers in the
face of those who compete and may have innovation to offer. Even DRM is not
justified, let alone the CSS 'appendages' in DVD's...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index