Most OpenSource analysis is TechnologicalDeterminism, which is because it is mostly about software developer emancipation, and software developers naturally believe in the divine fate of their own creations. Analyzing open source from a SocialConstructivism point of view gives another answer that is more predictive of success. 

Essentially, first developers want or need to share power, and so they need to share source, since developers need source to work. OpenSource is a natural outgrowth of building the Internet, since to build a NetworkStandard, everyone needed the same or similar implementations, and so the source had to be shared.

Academics similarly depend on information, so they want people to share knowledge first. Developers depend on source code, so they want people to share first. FreeSoftware, OpenAcademics. These are the same ideals, and they are old in the HistoryOfAcademia. 

Most rhetoric is backwards, saying we first share the source and then power is shared. This is false, as Meatball knows well, as we have built up a huge array of techniques to maintain social control over wikis, despite wikis being more 
technically open than most source control repositories.

This has made the search for business models of open source fail, since the rhetoric of share first only leads to increased exploitation of labour, as in the NetSweatshop. An analysis that looked at sharing power first would include negotiation, and therefore business. Sharing source first gives away the negotiating position. Never give away the sell!

But in practice you cannot compel someone to share information, since that will weaken their negotiating position, which is why we pay people for information. Hence, resistance to open source (also called knowledge sharing) often comes from those resistant to power sharing. Naive sharing of information outside the bounds of SocialRecourse can lead to disaster, as OffShore manufacturing has discovered. Sharing information in a culture caught up with share first idealism is dangerous, and it will lead to increasingly draconian responses by government to curb the practice, which will in turn only inspire more hardened share first rhetoric in anger. 

The secret to encourage more shared information is to look at the people involved in the situation and see why they do or do not want to share power. If you cannot address the real concerns of people who are resistant to share power, say it will give away their competive advantage and thus destroy the business of the company, then '''it is not appropriate to open the source.''' Competition creates TradeSecret""s for a good reason.

However, since the underlying rhetoric of the FreeSoftware movement is based on empowering developers by emancipating the essence of their livelihoods, it is unlikely that FreeSoftware will ever actually free non-developers as is criticized on FairSoftware. The belief that returning the means of production to the workers has not panned out very well in history, since it disempowers an entire segment of the population (management). Hence FairSoftware which is based on liberalist ideals that empower all segments of the population. The final model will hopefully be closer to democracy than communism in the end. It should be noted that Marx was the inventor of TechnologicalDeterminism, and EbenMoglen of the FSF is an overt Marxist. It's not very complicated to understand the attraction of the OpenSource to the Internet, FreeSoftware to OpenSource, and Marxism to FreeSoftware if viewed from this simple dimension of power amongst the people involved in the discussion.

=== Predicting FairSoftware's success or failure ===

FreeSoftware only prevails as much as it does because there is no rationalized way to ExchangeValue between developer efforts. Most often people barter for work done by exchanging favours. But suppose one open source project depends on another and they need something done, but it is ultimately unconvincing? It must fork the depended upon project or create the patch itself. The essential problem is that there is no way to exchange labour or future labour. The economic solution to the problem is to use money, a currency of stored labour, and exchange it. That is, the first project pays the second one in something that is universally of value since everyone needs and wants it. While some people may want to make new monetary systems based on time, it is sufficient at the moment to simply give each open source project its own bank account that it can use to pay for labour by people who want the money. FairSoftware accounts for this. In essence, it is simply a proposal to incorporate open source projects, which means they become businesses like any other. There is no reason not to do this except it is very expensive currently to open new businesses frivilously.

The benefit of this model, were it possible, is that it shares power amongst all people in society, including non-developers, since suddenly they have a simple way of contracting for work. The drawback of this model is that is still not as efficient as traditional capitalism, as it does not produce assets for anyone but the developers (more code). In a world where only software mattered, this would be fine, but we don't live in that world (we need to eat), so it will also fail since again it does not share the produced wealth with all people in society (code is not edible).

CategoryOpenSource