Open Sources - Does the Torvalds Proposal Work?

The developer of Linux, Linus Torvalds makes an argument why sources should be freely shared among everyone. From what I have heard it seems like he is an advocate against proprietorship and the allowance of constant critique and editing by the general public somewhat to how Wikipedia is now.

I read a 2001 article that he does with David Diamond titled "Why Open Sources Make Sense." And it seems clear that he believes in the anti-copyright movement where people can freely edit other people's works and that publications can never be owned. Where I take issue is that I think this allows people misquote others and even steal other people's innovative work. For example if everything was editable what is stopping me from editing pieces of Torvalds including his article.

For example I can edit his "Why Open Sources Makes Sense" to say things on the contrary. Even though it no longer is something Torvalds believes. Doesn't his thesis allow an abuse of power.

To find the full original piece by Torvalds and Diamond you can go to:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM01613.pdf

Below is my edits of his work:

It is obvious the PC which was the true starting point for the information revolution wasn't developed using the open source model, it is an example of a technology that was opened for any person or company to clone and consequently degrade. In its purest form, the open source model allows anyone to participate in a project's development or commercial exploitation yes that’s right exploitation of other people’s works (doesn’t sound too appealing to work now does it. Linux is obviously the most successful example and it isn’t even that good. What started out in my messy Helsinki bedroom has grown to become a collaborative mess. It began as an ideology shared by software developers who believed that computer source code should be shared freely, with the General Public License - the anticopyright - as the movement's powerful tool. It evolved to become a method for the continuous development of technology that still hasn’t quite gotten to the level of Macintosh, Microsoft or even any of the major internet industries such as Google or Yahoo. Nonetheless some people are using Linux despite its unpopularity on the global scale.
What was inspired by ideology has proved itself as a not very good technology that 9 out of 10 Americans probably don’t even know what Linux is. Now open source expanding
beyond the technical and business domains. At Harvard University Law School (which by the way believes that Wikipedia is not a credible source), professors Larry Lessig (who is now at Stanford) and Charles Nesson have brought the open source model to law (good luck footnoting Wikipedia). They started the Open Law Project, which relies on volunteer lawyers and law students posting opinions and research on the project's Web site to help develop arguments and briefs challenging the United States Copyright Extension Act. The theory is that the strongest arguments will be developed when the largest number of legal minds are working on a project, unfortunately not very many legal minds and any random Joe Shmo could have access and edit such briefs. The site nicely sums up the change from the traditional approach: "What we lose in secrecy, we further lose in credibility." (Put in another context: With a million eyes, some software bugs will vanish whereas several will be newly created. Ever heard of hackers?)
It's a wrinkle on how academic research has been conducted for years, but one that makes sense on a number of fronts. Think of how this approach could hunder the development of cures for diseases when everyone can mess with formulaic knowledge think about what would happen if your next surgeon printed his instructions from Wikipedia to do his operation. Think of what would happen if Wikipedia became the new Graduate School textbook. Or how, with the best and worst minds on the task, international diplomacy would become a joke. As the world becomes smaller, as the pace of life and business intensifies, and as the technology and information become available, people realise the tight-fisted approach is still useful in the continued use of closed-sourcing.
The theory behind open source is simple. In the case of an operating system - is free. Anyone can change it and exploit it. But those improvements, changes and exploitations have to be made freely available. Think Zen. The project belongs to no one and everyone. When a project is opened up, there is rapid and continual improvement (I forgot to mention continual exploitation here).

Well...there's my two cents on this.

Hitting Patriarchy Where it Hurts

The other day I arrived a couple minutes late to my Macroeconomic Theory course. Typically I sit right up in the front, however, when I am late I try to courteously sit in the back as not to disrupt the professor. As a result I got the very back of the classroom. It is funny how something as simple as seating placement can give you a whole different perspective in class. While many diligent students sit in the back of any given classroom, the back also gives room to a few people who refuse to take class seriously. The later would not dare express their ignorance to class from the front. It is obvious that there are rude students wherever you go. However, what surprised me were the patriarchal gestures and murmurs two students in particular had. These students sat in the row in front of me (still the back of the classroom) one of whom sat directly in front of me and the other diagonally.

Everything started when the girl sitting in front of them said something in class. From there on the behind the behind-the-back comments could not stop. These two jerks could not stop making sexual innuendos about this girl who was literally sitting right in front of them. I just do not understand how some people could be that rude even if testosterone is a male-driving hormone, couldn’t they at least tone it down for class. I mean for me and the others sitting in the way back it seemed obvious what they were doing and I am sure I was not the only one feeling sick about it. Sure this girl has a lot going for her. And sure the class is certainly not the most interesting of classes. However, what was going on in the classroom was completely uncalled for. Hopefully, I do not need to explain any further how inappropriate this situation was.

Now I know it sounds unusual to point something out such as this. Is this something I really should be sharing? Honestly, I thought hard about this before posting. I finally realized the need to push the boundaries when it comes to letting things get heard even regarding things that people may prefer to be heard. The plain fact is that instances of patriarchy cannot go be ignored and must be exposed no matter how disturbed someone can be upon hearing such issues. In the end knowledge of what normally goes under the radar for some may be an important starting point to recognizing how prevalent the problem is as well as how sick others can be. Obviously everyone knows that patriarchy is embedded in society and that most people – men and women – have in one way or another taken a part in it. The difficult thing is coming to solutions for such subtle yet objectifying acts. The prevailing mindset seems to indicate that change must come from an individual level in order to address what are truly individual instances. After all, it is the individuals that make up the collective and ultimately what make society function the way it does. So you can say what you want about me sharing such an obscure piece. I know it is unlike me. This is not coming from your hippie or radical feminist but rather someone who thinks that people should strive towards human decency, something that I have witnessed to be clearly lacking.

Profit and the Loss of Just Price

Not even bread can be considered a cheap commodity anymore.

Living off the school campus has some nice advantages. One in particular is that students living off-campus are not bound to the school meal plan which most Boston College students will agree with me when I say that it is unfair. Students on the meal plan are required to pay about two grand each semester that can only be used for food in the dining hall. As a result, students on the meal plan have no option but to eat at the dining halls. On its face the meal plan may not seem like not that bad of a thing barring one cold hard fact: the cafeteria prices. Boston College dining facilities are beyond expensive and the quality of the food is by no means great. Paying 16 dollars for a plate of chicken and two sides may seem feasible in only the some of the more high-in restaurants yet such a price is a plain reality in the BC cafeteria. Yet, Boston College is able to hike the prices up as high as they want due to BC policy which requires roughly half of the student body to buy the meal plan (anybody who lives in an on-campus dorm without a kitchen must but the meal plan).

As I was saying, fortunately the meal plan is no longer an issue for me. As I can buy groceries from nearby supermarkets and save a lot of money on meals. Nonetheless, while dining halls are the extreme example of the loss of just price (also "fair price"). Our society experiences issues of unfair pricing in a whole slew of sectors.

Recently I went to the local Shaw's Market to buy a loaf of honey wheat bread. Printed on the package was the following:


While the writing was pretty clear in person, I understand that image may be hazy from digital reproduction. Along with some other inscriptions, you may notice that on the left of the package there is small lettering that reads: UNIT PRICE 2.39/LB SUGGESTED. Fair enough. However, you will also notice on the right the retail price $3.29 which was the price the grocery store was charging the consumer for the loaf of bread. You will also notice at the bottom that the loaf weighed a pound making the retail price far higher than the suggested price. How could that possibly be reasonable? For me this brings a new face to the abuse of pricing. The even worse thing is that supermarkets such as Shaws have membership discounts and try to boast about there savings to its customers. Yet, even an item like this discounted is still higher than the suggested price. Saving money...more like losing less money.

All I can say is that at least I am not on the meal plan.

Long Time Passing

Most people who know me can attest to my passion for writing. It is very hard to think that the last time I posted was in 2008 (over a month ago) and I was living in an entirely different country. Computer problems in January have also prevented me from keeping up blogging. Fortunately, I have been able finally make some time for myself and am thrilled to be able to write again so for me it is an opportunity to resume blogging. It is interesting that life experiences and current events have given me a myriad of ideas for things to write about (if only I could remember all of them). Nonetheless I do not expect any difficulty finding things to write.

After all, isn't that the point of Jot by Jot. Writing for pleasure to provide a medium and outflow of ideas. Maybe some have found the site or particular posts useful.
With my original Dell school computer refurbished things are finally looking up.