Mises.org Is Going Open Source

A commenter, Stewart, has brought to my attention that Mises.org is going Open Source.

Congratulations must be offered to the Institute for following through in a principled manner on the beliefs they hold.

Further, Stewart asked if it has changed my mind on hypocrisy of the Institute. Actually, from these actions, one must say that there has been no hypocrisy on their part at all.

Webster's dictionary defines hypocrisy as, "a feigning to be what one is not." It's clear that the Mises Institute, after the contradiction between their beliefs and their actions was brought to their attention, acted with utmost speed to align their practices with their beliefs.

Stewart also asks, "Do you plan on following through with your promise to publish an edition of Last Knight?" The short answer is yes. However, as it appears that Mises is opening the " complete copy of Mises.org. This includes all the books, all the media, all the journals, all the source code, and the complete database behind mises.org" I can see some other properties that I may want to do something with first.

I hasten to add that I continue to see Open Source as a valid marketing strategy versus the basis for a universal intellectual property theory. I continue work on my book which will address this issue and others in detail. I'm sure the debate will liven up at that point again. In the meantime, let's enjoy this new gift the Mises Institute has given us.

Google Supports Intellectual Property Rights

Google gets it. Sometmes it makes sense to go open source and give away your product, and sometimes it doesn't.

In October 2008, Google announced that they would provide the source code for their new phone operatng system, Android:

...today, we're making what might just be the most exciting announcement of all: we and our Open Handset Alliance partners have now released the source code for Android. There's a huge amount of code and content there, so head over to http://source.android.com/ for all the details.

However, it is allowing Android developers the right to charge for their apps. and maintain intellectual property rights with regard to the products it offer. Gphoneholic reports and then explains:

What does this mean for you? Presumably we’ll be getting some high quality apps from developers that aren’t keen on giving anything away. I expect we’ll see many of the apps on 3rd-party stores (like SlideME, AndAppStore, Android Guys, Handango, etc.) will make appearances on the Android Market now. To compete with Google, those other stores are going to have to increase the incentive for developers perhaps through lower fees (however, Google’s rates are not outragous) or by utilizing other forms of payment from users, since the Android Market will only use Google Checkout for processing transactions.

Get ready for more apps, and to pay for them.

And Google locks it all down in their developer agreement:

...The Market will allow you to protect your Products so that users may not share Products with other users or devices...Each party shall own all right, title and interest, including without limitation all intellectual property rights, relating to its Brand Features. Except to the limited extent expressly provided in this Agreement, neither party grants, nor shall the other party acquire, any right, title or interest (including, without limitation, any implied license) in or to any Brand Features of the other party.

Lew Rockwell on Intellectual Property

Lew Rockwell has a short post on Apple's attempt to defend its right to contract. Writes Lew:

February 15, 2009

Calling Kinsella and Tucker

Posted by Lew Rockwell at February 15, 2009 12:31 PM

Apple wants to jail you and fine you if you alter your own property. Just another indication that "intellectual property," as Stephan and Jeff say, is the destruction of real property rights for the benefit of bogus ones, not so speak of an attack on human betterment.

I'm just not getting Lew's line of argument on this very important topic.

If anyone makes any type of product and sells it with stipulations, i.e. with contract, I don't see how I have the right to violate that contract. If Apple sells a phone and says, "We are selling this phone with the stipulation that you don't mess with the insides," I am free to take that deal or walk away.

If I take the deal and then mess with the insides, in my book that is violating contract. Just what gives me the right to overrule a contract we both agree on? If Apple makes you sign a contract that it will only sell the phone if you don't mess with the insides, and you sign it, and are aware of the terms Apple expects you to live up to, and you then mess with the insides, aren't you a liar by telling Apple one thing and doing another?