LiberArs – Magazine of Arts and Philosophy

Open Source Philosophy

Community-egalitarian perspective of the gift-common benefit.

With this article I will not illustrate the principle and characteristics of the phenomenon of Open Source (wikipedia is already there for this!) Or address issues specific to an expert in computer science, mechanics or other that is not my intention to replace.

I would propose, instead, a more general and straying from the world of giving the concept of Open source (English word Arise open) a genesis and ontology broader.

If the twentieth century was marked by the heyday of neoTechCapitalism (product proprietary, media proprietary, proprietary software), Open Source, in this new capacity, could be the natural response as antithetical to imperialism proprietary.

Now here, you can criticize the vision of Open Source I have proposed condemnations of prevarication the origin of the concept of altering the genesis of the subject and to preach what it is not implied. Good! Going further, it is just to gain.

In this personal perspective, the Open Source is manifested as the exaltation of the cooperative relationship of equals. Explain. Some people create products and placing them in the environment available to the entire humanity, so that those who might need it should not “reinvent the wheel” but can use them by finding the product from the environment. Those who use them also might contribute to the improvement of project-object updates (if it’s old) or along with their experience, from time to time the project-object will become ever more a product of all of humanity.

This is not a new phenomenon, is inherent in the history of centuries.

Nobody wants to reinvent the wheel from scratch and limit their use to those who are willing to pay. The problem seems to relate the time, or the advantage that produces power to individuals with specific expertise in elevating superiority over others. This is obviously advantageous personal power at the expense of others, namely humanity (I = other) … all of us.

I propose a simple experimental design of the universe (together) if:

live 10 men (M) and there are 10 apples (A).

How to divide A compared to M, that is, between those who want to benefit?

It is not difficult to note that among the ten possible subdivisions, there are two extremes:

• ace take all

• bijection

The first is the circumstance in which 1 M has 10 A (the other 9 M therefore possess 0 A) and the second represents a situation in which every M has A 1 (1 A for evry M).

Of course, one must first a minimum requirement for every man:

one M need at least one A to survive.

What can you estimate the best distribution?

This example is simple and unrealistic, but we try to make it quite enlightening.

Taking the theory of scarcity of goods could be reduced to 4 apples, then we have:

10 M and 4 A.

10 M and 4 A.

Things can does more complicated …

We may assume, to improve the scheme, the existence of a material G (finite, say 60) divided into several types (Gx, Gy, Gz … Gn) manipulation and pliable so as to give rise to different products.

At this point we could say that, until now it was necessary to produce 1A join 4Gx to 2Gy,

we have then discovered a new formula by which 2GX 1Gz = 1A

This is just one example, science fiction. But as Einstein taught us, science fiction is the premise of the new knowledge. Not only that, the science is still science fiction (do not know the “thing itself” but noumenon the “thing what seems to me” phenomenon).

Finally, what for me is important to highlight in this paper is the prospective Community-egalitarian perspective of the gift-common benefit, a situation that can be useful for the detection of sharing in all directions (how to produce 1 A minor amounts of G).

In the ace-take-all situation does not arise the need to produce the same amount with less G 1 because M of A already has 9 A (9 times more than they need to survive) and thus does not feel the need to improve the system .

In the system of “cooperative relationship” instead, you feel the need and desirability of improving (optimizing the system), and to take action.

The model takes all of the ace does not feel any particular need and accept a premise of moral character and not, as:

“It’s ‘essential (it is right, it is essential, is key et …) that for Me living, another die, or do not improve is what is necessary.”

It ‘clear that Ace may want to optimize the production of A for selfish ends, self-centered and “individual” and falls into play here the concept of necessity.

In summary, the Open Source of which we speak is the product-design-object of the prospect of joint co-op and is therefore identifiable with the common good.

… and who knows, one day needs, common needs and individual needs could be subject to a new article …

See you Soon!

Popularity: 2% [?]

No related posts.