A Generalization of Open Source : Learning Linux

A Close Look at Open Source

The compilers, interpreters, text editors, etc., needed to manipulate source code are freely available, and willingly distributed. If one has an internet connection, then one has access to the things they need to read, write and test source code. In addition, the source code of any open-source project is, by definition, freely available, so that most people in the developed world may tinker on software, if they so choose. Thus, satisfying a desire is made feasible, if only to a subset of the population.

Canonically, an open-source project is a hobby. While there are some full-time developers, they are the exception, rather than the rule. In practice, it is difficult to garner a wage via open source wares, even when it is justified, so that most development is carried out in a hobbyist spirit. We can think of it thus: They do what they want, they sometimes make their work available to us, and we’re free only to take it or leave it.

An open-source project often begins with a statement of the form “I want _____”, “We ought to have ______,” or, “I want to do ______,” but projects have also begun simply as someone started working on them. This implies some latent desire— either desire for the thing, or to do the particular thing better, or to do the thing for its own sake.

The original motivation of open sourcing software was to allow users the capacity to study it, especially if it did interesting things, and to take and use parts of it for their own purposes. Those freedoms are preserved in open source, today. More broadly, one can modify an open source work however one desires. When a developer does this, an immediate consequence is that they are in sole possession of their altered work. There are three options available to them.

In the first, they simply keep the new work, and decline to give it to others. Each developer is perfectly entitled to do this: No one is required, nor expected, to distribute the fruits of their labor.

The second option is to distribute their modified work without input from its source. This is called “forking” the project, and results in a new project existing alongside the original. This has transpired even about important projects, like GNU’s gcc. (For completeness’ sake: If the original work was released under a copyleft license, then the modified work’s source must be released alongside the runnable object. Otherwise, the source code is released at the developer’s option.)

The third option is to return the alterations to the source developers for review and, possibly, integration into the original work.

All cases represent some form of collaboration. A culture unique to open source has been created; as mentioned, there are only a few things you can do with a project and its source. Notably, whatever you do with it, the original work remains the property of its owner.

Around popular projects, the code is something to “gather around,” much as one might gather around a fire. Around such a project, a culture manifests— this is a project-wise culture unique to each project, and nobody is in a position to dictate what that culture should be, except the participants themselves. Some, for example, close their doors to outsiders, while others, in the spirit of inclusion, put their code second to community.

In another form of collaboration, some projects exist to facilitate the work of others. To give an example, the Rust programming language describes itself as, “A language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.”

By those that choose to do so, their works are made available to others; they can then be collected and redistributed, as desired. Thus, the FreeBSD folks operate their own distribution, the Rust developers have created their own repository, and the Linux folks leave distribution to those that want to distribute it. The net result of all this being that an ordinary person can make use of the work, if they choose, with a reasonable amount of effort.

We now present our generalization.

Presenting Collaborationism

First, we hold that given the right preconditions, which include both desire within a community and feasibility of its satisfaction, attempts to satisfy that desire will take root naturally. As in open source, collaboration can take different forms, with each promising to ease the burden of work. Working with like-minded others, as in the old truism “Many hands make light work,” is the most straightforward form. Accepting improvements from relative strangers is similar.

But, the purpose of a project (or a worthwhile goal, if you prefer) can be to empower other people: There is no contradiction in an individual working to facilitate the work of others. Thus, a tractor, for instance, is both an end in itself and also a means to an end. By giving such an item to a person or project, you are collaborating with them on their own project.

We respect property rights; in fact, we prefer them. In collaborationism’s purest form, the goods that an individual produces are the individual’s, regardless of the organizations which assisted in their production. That is to say, the organization(s) that helped produce the goods lay no claim to them. We can refer to this situation as “pure collaboration” because it asserts that collaboration takes place when goods and services are given back to the community which supported doing so. To say that another way, if we give materials and capabilities to an individual who produces a product and, they, when in sole possession of the product, elect to sell it for personal gain, we have collaborated on their wealth, and they have not collaborated with us. They have every right to do this, and we have every right to learn from the experience.

Note:

The word "benefact" is introduced as the verb form of "benefaction," a noun.

We elect to produce things and to give them to one another. We do not require everyone to agree with us, nor to work with us. In virtue of respect of property rights, we can form communities of like-minded constituents: We simply benefact goods and services to whatever people or organizations we desire. There are any number of reasons we might do so, but the important part is that the rationale, and the ultimate decision, are ours.

If an organization has been erected, then strictly speaking it is that organization’s prerogative to distribute the goods it produces. This must align with its workers’ desires, if only imperfectly; we leave it up to individual organizations to decide such things, and up to the individual to decide whether or not to work for a given organization.

An organization may elect to distribute its goods directly to those it wishes to have them; an example of this is a church-run soup kitchen, feeding the destitute. But, an interesting possibility exists: An organization could be started whose purpose it is to distribute the goods of other organizations. This is neither centralized nor coercive: There could be more than one such organization. More, the individuals and organizations donating to this distributive organization have every right to change their minds, and take their goods elsewhere.

We value our independence, so that we may establish our own identity. Thus, we do not “belong” to the projects or organizations we partake in; rather, they’re “just something we do.”

On Ideals and Degrees of Purity

While we may have an ideal (“pure collaboration”), it is not necessarily the case that it will be realized from the outset; the situation is similar to the ideal of human equality held by the United States’ founding fathers, who all the while supported slavery, even personally owning slaves. Ideals are approached asymptotically, rather than realized at any one point. We are human, so that imperfection is unavoidable.

Pure collaboration introduces the possibility of the organization becoming insolvent even while individuals work there. Like a run on banks, in pure collaboration the volunteers could decide to keep their work entirely to themselves, and thereby leave the organization which empowered them without the means to continue to support them.

Thus, we can expect organizations to realize pure collaboration imperfectly— that is, to “charge” the workers they support some of what they make— in order to assert their own solvency. We leave it up to each organization to make individuals an offer, and up to individuals to gauge these organizations for themselves.

In no way are the principles of collaborationism dependent upon non-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can offer positions of labor in exchange for their (raw) output. For example, a steel mill might find that it costs $1000 to produce a metric ton of steel, and that 200 man-hours is worth $1200 to them; they could then reasonably offer a metric ton of steel in exchange for 200 man-hours. Thus, workers could be paid traditionally, entirely in the resultant product, or a mix of the two. In keeping with the principles outlined above, the resulting steel, if owned by the workers who produced it, would then be used entirely at their discretion.

On the Importance of Invitation

If, for any reason, cooperation is compelled, then the choice to act is illusory. The problem with compulsory cooperation is that it is “unbounded above,” in the sense that there is no upper limit to what may be demanded.

Merriam-Webster’s defines tyranny to mean “Oppressive power”; in turn, it defines oppressive to mean “Unreasonably burdensome or severe.”^[1] Thus, in at least one sense, tyranny connotes, “Unreasonably severe [use of] power.” Living under tyrannical rule is characterized by fear. In its simplest form, the tyrannical ruler issues the commandment, “Do what I say or else,” but there are at least a few other forms of it.

One form is the implication that catastrophe is coming, wherein a tyrant plays towards the fear of their audience, in an effort to motivate. Tyranny can be implicit, rather than explicit, as well. For example, an individual could be compelled to work if not doing so means starvation; the result would be fear of losing or not holding a job.

The personality trait of conscientiousness, taken to its extreme, results in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which has been described as “The tyranny of the should.”^[2] It manifests as, “I should do this,” and “I should do that,” and “No, I can’t let that go.” This is a subtle form of tyranny, for it is an apparent facet of oneself.

The tyranny of the should has cropped up in open source from time to time; in addition to being unhealthy, it is also unsatisfying and dangerous. Ian Murdoch introduced to the world Debian, a Linux distribution in the spirit of open source, where an individual with a specific desire can propose a modification that suits their needs. Debian was an unambiguously great idea: It has stood the test of time, has satisfied millions of users, and continues to be relevant decades after its inception. Despite this, Ian took his own life in December of 2015 while cleaning his apartment.

Conclusion

The astute reader might notice that, from a purely theoretical standpoint, we are presupposing only life, liberty, and the right to own personal property. This coincides exactly with the philosophy of John Locke, and, in addition to being diametrically opposed to the philosophy of communism, is contingent on no givens, since we may assert both liberty and the right to own personal property ourselves. Thus, this article states simply, “We can work together if we want to.”

Since it is true that we can do what we choose, the idea is durable. Like anything else, if some aspect of it does not work, all we must do is study it, learn from the situation, and revise our solution.

Finally, we conclude by proving that collaborationism is distinct from each of communism, socialism and capitalism, using definitions provided by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

Since we choose to respect personal property rights, we are distinct from the communist ideal. What is yours is yours, and what’s mine is mine, and we would like to keep it that way. Moreover, there is no attempt to eliminate the notion of status or class from society: We find no fault in the possibility of some people having more power or wealth than other people. Again, this differentiates us from the communist ideal.

We are characterized by unaffiliated individuals and organizations working together when they so choose; thus, the so-called “means of production” are owned neither collectively nor by the government. Moreover, we do not report to any “master,” so that the fruits of our labors are distributed according our will, and not someone else’s. Therefore, we are distinct from socialism.

The relationship between collaborationism and capitalism is more nuanced. Merriam-Webster’s defines capitalism as (and only as), “An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”^[1] Thus, formally speaking, collaborationism differs from capitalism in how the distribution of goods is decided: We decide where our goods go, while they sell them for what they can get.

However, we are distinct from the layman’s understanding of capitalism in a few ways. Our principal pursuit is not money, but either the product or the labor itself: We want to do what we do. Products are produced to the satisfaction of their creators, and then are optionally shared with a chosen community. This sharing of the results of our labor differentiates us from capitalism because the principal method of exchange is the gift, rather than the transaction.