Re: is free, open source software ethical?

In article <aJCdnaEZBNjRElLanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Richard Heathfield <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >> When scientists make claims that are not verifiable, their
credibility
> >> becomes important. When they say stupid things (e.g. "all
creationists
> >> are irrational" or "there is no such thing as altruism" or "Olly's
fish
> >> has chickenpox" or "random data cannot be compressed"), I am likely
to
> >> reassess their credibility.
> > 
> > Random data in fact cannot be compressed.  That is actually part of
the
> > definition of random data.
> 
> This is equivalent to claiming that, if data can be compressed, it
cannot 
> be random.

Randomness, like friendship, is an continuum, not a dichotomy.

> If you are right, we can sometimes predict with 100% accuracy 
> the next value in a random stream of data, such as - say - the toss of a

> fair coin.

Huh?  How do you figure that?

> Let's say for the sake of argument that we can compress 10 or 
> more identical results (10 heads or 10 tails).

If you want to take issue with the claim that random data cannot be 
compressed you seriously undermine your case if you begin by assuming 
for the sake of argument that it can.  You might just as well begin by 
saying, "Let's assume for the sake of argument that one equals two."  
OK, we can assume that, but none of the conclusions that we draw from 
that assumption will be valid.

> Thus, if you're right, if 
> we get 9 straight tails, the next toss *must* result in a head.
> Conversely, if we get 9 straight heads, the next toss *must* result in a

> tail. Because otherwise, the data would be compressible, and random 
> processes are not *allowed* to produce compressible data.
> 
> And that is simply absurd.

Indeed.

> Now, I *know* what you mean.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't.  If you did you would know why 
random data cannot be compressed, even if it's a run of ten heads.  Try 
it.  Explain to me how you're going to compress that data.

> And what you *mean* is right. But what you're 
> actually saying is ludicrous (which is why I've been very gently luding 
> you).

Yeah, I'll say.  Those must be some pretty good ludes you're doing, bro.

> > To say that the sun revolves around the earth is very
> > badly wrong in fundamental ways.
> 
> Experimental evidence suggests very, very strongly that the Sun goes
round 
> the Earth. I seem to remember that you're very hot on experimental 
> evidence.

You have a deep misunderstanding of the nature of experimental evidence.  
It is true that (some) experimental evidence suggests that the sun 
revolves around the earth.  But there is other evidence that is, at 
least as far as anyone can tell, *incompatible* with the theory that the 
sun revolves around the earth (e.g. the seasons, the earth's equatorial 
bulge, the retrograde motion of Mars, etc. etc. etc.)  So the fact that 
there is evidence that suggests that the sun revolves around the earth 
is *irrelevant*.  Such evidence does indeed exist.  Nonetheless, the sun 
does not revolve around the earth.

> >> > Of course people write programs (and do all manner of things) in
the
> >> > interests of other people.  But for it to be altruism they must get
> >> > nothing in return.  But you *are* getting something in return:
> >> > friendship.
> >>  
> >> Nonsense. The friendship already exists and would have continued
whether
> >> I wrote the program or not.
> > 
> > Friendship is an analog relationship, not a binary one.
> 
> Certainly true...
> 
> > It is likely
> > that your good deed strengthened your friendship in ways that will
> > provide you some direct benefit down the road.
> 
> ...but likely false. I had all but forgotten the incident until this 
> discussion came up about free software, and I'm sure my friend has 
> forgotten it too by now.

Maybe.  Or maybe some incident will occur that will trigger this memory 
in your friend just as this incident has with you.  Maybe some day 
you'll be in a bind and your friend will suddenly remember that back in 
the day you did her a favor and that will push her over the edge to do 
you one in return.

Or maybe it won't happen and your only reward will be that warm fuzzy 
feeling you got when she smiled at you and said thanks.  But that's a 
benefit too.

> > Maybe she'll now do you
> > a favor that she might otherwise not have done.  Maybe she'll go out
> > with you now.  Maybe your good deed moved her closer to the point
where
> > she wants to bear your children.
> 
> I can think of at least four people who would consider that to be a 
> laughable idea - myself, my wife, the friend in question, and her
husband.

Yeah, but your genes don't care what any of those people think.  (They 
don't care what you think either by the way.)

> In any case, the objection is simply wrong. Altruism is about intent. I 
> will gladly concede that some free software developers give away their 
> code in the hope of some gain. But there are certainly those who give
away 
> their code because they want to benefit others. That *is* altruism in 
> action.

Can you cite an example?  Certainly RMS is not such a person.  He goes 
to great lengths to pressure people who use the software he writes to 
compensate him by contributing to his Marxist Utopia.

rg