Musing on Torwald's explanation for his commitment to open source in software, he is both completely right and incredibly wrong.

Torvalds emphasis on reciprocity as a dominant value is right. It is a word used often here at PFF to describe the workings of the IP system, and to explain why unauthorized P2P violates the social contract.

But he has an awfully limited view of reciprocity in that he insists that code can only be traded for code. This may do in a research context, but once one enters the world of affairs, not even the most primitive barter economy trades like for like. Og the Cro Magnon traded meat for a finely crafted club, or a log canoe for a tent.

Now, granted, Torvalds is not talking about trading exactly the same code, but this is still a strange and unnecessary conttraint.

I don't write code. So, in Torvalds' view, we cannot trade. But a broader view is that we can trade because reciprocity includes me giving him money, which he can then use to buy something that he cannot make himself.

The market is a giant reciprocity machine. Why is this a hard point?

posted by James DeLong @ 2:29 PM | Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)