I'm in Southern Utah, taking in Zion National Park and a family reunion. In between mountain biking, group hugs, diaper changing, and eating (Asays always eat, no matter where we are or what food is available - we eat a lot), I managed to finish reading Jon Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil. The premise underlying the book seemed interesting, and I figured it might help me understand how Dave Rosenberg manages to exist despite a benevolent creation. :-)
Unfortunately, it's not very interesting reading. Academic to a fault, and dry to the point of sin.
Still, the central thesis is interesting. The best summary comes from a reader's review on Amazon (link above):
...Levenson makes a compelling case for the idea that the act of creation consisted (and consists!) of God's mastering preexistent forces of chaos rather than the simple, unopposed production of something out of nothing--and that these forces were not vanquished but continue to exist under restraints that are subject to fluctuations in God's vigilance. In this view, creation is neither static nor finished but is, as the subtitle suggests, a drama requiring ongoing application of divine attention and energy. And creation was, and is, a process of ordering reality by separating things, by establishing and maintaining boundaries.In other words, things were not created ex nihilo (which is a poor translation, anyway) but rather ordered out of chaos. A nice bridge to the scientific view of the earth's creation, too, but this is not the place to stir up that silly debate....
Now, lest you find this post overly religious in nature (it's not intended to be), I actually find it oddly familiar to the "creation" of open source. (Yes, I see open source everywhere and no, I will not equate Richard Stallman with God, no matter his St. Ignucius jokes on this subject. :-)
The GPL, to be effective, couldn't have been created ex nihilo. Instead, it had to conform to the existing copyright system. In many ways, it orders that system for the benefit of customers and developers. No, it doesn't allow Microsoft to take without giving back, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. The GPL, as Eben Moglen beautifully describes [Video] in his Red Hat Summit keynote, is quintessentially American. It, not the proprietary software shams masquerading as "American as apple pie". It is copyleft that looks/feels/smells like free market capitalism.
But to succeed, it had to order the existing intellectual property world. This was Richard Stallman's greatest genius.
Open source, of course, has not "conquered evil." Nor will it if it manages to completely displace proprietary software (which is unlikely), because proprietary software is not evil. It's just chaotic. Inefficient. Weak.
But if you're competing in the market right now, you know that open source has, without question, restructured competition on its terms, and in its image. The question is no longer "Why open source?", but rather "Why not open source?" Customers are asking this question, and there is a growing tide of open source vendors who are ready with exceptional open source licensed-products at the ready.
Over time, more and more vendors will recognize the inherent weaknesses of proprietary software licensing, and will opt for open source. In the meantime, the best vigilance against backsliding into chaos (proprietary software, where interoperability and integration happen either not at all or by subjugation, with sparse middle ground between the two) is winning with open source.
Just be sure to rest on the seventh day. :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on June 13, 2006 07:42 PM
