In the past, I've discussed many issues that upset me. From software licensing to Wikipedia editing. I'll probably continue to do so, but there is certainly a correlation between both of these topics, as well as countless others, which lies in philosophy: human nature.
In short, for every idea, no matter how obvious and true, there is always someone who feels the complete opposite is true, and will raise hell at the mere hint that they are wrong. This typically manifests itself under two types of people: permissive and preventive individuals. This really fuels so many problems, so I'll summarize how this root cause is behind so many varied topics; one by one.
Software Licensing
A few days ago, there was yet another discussion on Slashdot about this. A developer took BSDL code, and attempted to remove the BSD license and claim it as GPL licensed software. Theo de Raadt responded with a very well-reasoned message.
Obviously, one cannot remove a BSD license disclaimer from a piece of software. But what one can do, is dual license it under a more restrictive license, such as GPL, which effectively seals off any future improvements from anyone wishing to utilize the BSDL. This is most certainly what the GPL developer will end up doing.
Theo's response was basically that while this dual licensing is perfectly legal, it is far from moral. Of course, I'm sure we can all guess the public's reaction to such a message.
Just in case someone can't: at least half of all people responded with "well, the software authors knew that this could happen when they chose the BSDL. They should have chosen the GPL instead." -- an interesting proposition, to say the least. This is the equivalent of stating that just because something can be done, it is perfectly okay when it actually is done. These people see absolutely no hypocrisy in suggesting the use of the GPL to prevent people from doing exactly what the GPL developers are doing themselves: taking source code and locking it off from access to the original developers via relicensing. Something that apparently not even commercial users of BSDL code often do. Talk about becoming your enemy to defeat him.
The BSDL supporters believe in freedom moreso than the GPL supporters. They believe in placing the onus of freedom on others, hoping that they will live up to this expectation by sharing any contributions freely as well. The GPL supporters are the opposing viewpoint: that people cannot be trusted, and tight restrictions are required to ensure that everyone receives the same rights.
Wikipedia
Recently, a certain user nominated all SNES emulation related articles for deletion. This obviously pissed me off, and I attempted to respond too quickly. Having had time to reflect on this, and read an article by Jason Scott on the subject, I was able to see the correlation to licensing clearly.
The core problem is people's lack of willingness to work together for the greater good. Here we have an idea to make an online encyclopedia, where everyone should be able to edit any article as an equal. Of course, in theory the idea worked great. And it was easy to weed out those who abused the system via vandalism and such when the number of users were small. But as Wikipedia continued to grow, they ran into human nature: suddenly, there were far too many vandals to keep up with. The most popular articles were attacked so mercilessly by vandals that bureaucracy came into play. Suddenly, we have multiple levels of accounts with different priveleges. Suddenly we have locked articles, deleted history, and so on. What Wikipedia was originally envisioned to be failed in practice when enough people with opposing viewpoints gathered in the same place.
The person nominating the Wikipedia articles for deletion was known as a "deletionist." The opposing viewpoint is held by "inclusionists." Fairly self explanatory, but the idea of the former is that there should be no cruft in Wikipedia, and anything non-notable should be deleted. The inclusionists, however, feel that it isn't anyone's place to determine what is and is not notable for everyone. Clearly, articles wouldn't exist if their subjects were not notable to anyone.
The inclusionists would favor more user freedoms and less controls, while the deletionists would no doubt favor much stricter controls over article editing and creation. They enforce some of this through elaborate and confusing rules, which are used as tools to try and prune Wikipedia as lean as possible. As time goes on, these rules are refined to further weed out that which they do not like.
Generalization
The correlation should now be obvious: when you have two large enough groups of opposing viewpoints, it is no longer possible to reach a concensus. Certain people are simply far too polarized to allow it. Hence, we endure a constant struggle between these two groups.
BSDL supporters and Wikipedia inclusionists are a lot alike, as are GPL supporters and Wikipedia deletionists. But that of course does not mean that everyone falls into one group or the other. Indeed, a BSDL supporting, Wikipedia deletionist is a real possibility. So, how are they related?
The Permissive
The BSDL supporters and Wikipedia inclusionists basically rely on the good will of human beings to not abuse freedoms given to them. Obviously, people can and will abuse these freedoms anyway. This works the same as many rights. Take for example, freedom of speech or gun control. Obviously, these freedoms can be abused: freedom of speech can be used to spread hate speech: bigotry, racism, etc; guns can be used to prey on the innocent with an unfair advantage. But both are also used for much good: freedom of speech can allow the exposure of corruption; guns can be used to protect the innocent.
How do we keep these rights that can be used both ways? Simple, they are abused rarely enough that we deal with the consequences in return for the freedoms that they provide.
If everyone abused guns and used them to commit murder, then most certainly there would be a dire requirement to restrict guns from public ownership. And in fact, many countries have gone and done just that.
The Preventive
The GPL supporters and Wikipedia deletionists take good will as suspect. Surely, giving someone freedom to do what they want will result in everyone abusing those freedoms. They must be stopped by strict laws. This plays out everywhere as well. Take drug laws for example. This has both a good and bad side, just like free speech and gun control.
On one hand, drugs can be beneficial -- many claim that psilocybin is beneficial to certain disorders, such as one I suffer from -- obsessive compulsive disorder. On the other hand, they can be abused. They can be used as an addictive tool, as Coca Cola realized when their original recipe contained cocaine. A great way to ensure repeat customers: chemical dependency. There are also many human beings who simply cannot use drugs responsibly, thus laws are practically required. The thing here is, there are too many people who would abuse freedom to use drugs for nefarious purposes, and thusly it is heavily regulated. There is undoubtedly much corruption in this prohibition as well, with many laws deeply rooted in racism and such, but the overall point is still valid. It would be a detriment to society to allow the free trade of any and all drugs.
Summary
Unfortunately, as has been shown to us countless times throughout history: humans are greedy and self-serving. That has not changed. Sadly, it is the preventive camp that is more realistic. People will abuse the BSDL. Ironically, the GPL devs who add GPL requirements to BSDL code are a fine example of that. People will abuse Wikipedia: the most popular articles which are locked from anonymous editing are a fine example of that.
This issue actually goes very deep, down to core controls in place of everyone. Take anarchy vs ochlarchy. Anarchy is permissive, demanding an absolute lack of authority. But this system is ripe for abuse by greedy individuals. Ochlarcy is preventive, relying on a near police-like state to control and protect the populous.
Such control would not be necessary if it were not abused. But unfortunately, as has been the case from as far back as we can imagine, until as far ahead as we can imagine, people simply aren't capable of being trusted. Hence, anarchy simply cannot work due to the current state of humanity: it would require evolution of our species.
Ironically, even the ability of humans to evolve to a level of intelligence such that anarchy would be possible is a subject of intense debate. I do not believe in the ability of humans to ever allow the state of anarchy, whereas Derrick, who hosts my site, most certainly does believe it is achievable. But one thing we can agree on: humanity is certainly not ready for anarchy right now. And clearly, most of the world agrees that ochlarchy is equally undesirable. By giving away all of our freedoms to a specific few humans, we would simply be asking them to abuse that power. Thusly, most forms of government attempt to strike a balance between these two viewpoints. And thanks to our wonderful ability to not be capable of agreeing on anything as a species, we can't even choose a consistent, universal form of governance.
In closing, we see that it's not possible nor desirable for either form of absolute extremism to work at our current stage of evolution. A compromise appears to be the best way to accomodate everyone as a whole and avoid eternal futile debates. In other words, centrism. But, so long as there are extremists who simply cannot tolerate those with a differing viewpoint, even centrism is doomed to endless fighting. It would seem that centrism is restricted by the very same reasons that prevent total permissiveness and total preventiveness from working.
By far the most interesting point of this all is how it relates to virtually all conflict. Sometimes we lose sight of this in the heat of battles, but it's all very much predictive. Our hope of a unified software license or utopian Wikipedia is damned right from the start due to human nature itself. The same for all debates: those about religion, those about politics, all of it. I suppose the only thing we can really strive for is our own personal support of centrism. If anything, it at least helps ease the pain of these neverending battles when you argue your viewpoint yet see no change, it's just that such change is impossible right from the start. It's better to just choose a middle ground and move on. Leave the extremists to their own loathing.
© 2007 byuu - archive.is/FC4TP