My CS 404 Thoughts

Today's presentation and discussion had two effects on me. First, it reminded me that I really do want to do my own thing, and start my own business again at some point. Second, it reassured me that there are people in the high-tech community that think like I do. I wouldn't have guessed that someone as technically savvy as Phil Bunker would agree with the RIAA about DRM and what I can and can't do with media that I have legally purchased, but it was nice to get the affirmation that someone a little older and much wiser than me thinks the same way I do about the subject. It was also great to hear his thoughts about what rights your employer should have over your outside-of-work intellectual property. Despite the fact that I'm not likely to have much leverage when I first begin my career, I can always turn down a job with an employer whose ideas of intellectual property don't allow me to exercise my own creativity. If everyone in the high-tech industry held the same belief, that their personal life and creations were completely separate from their employer, I believe it would have an impact on those employers who want to control or own their employees lives and creations. If no one would work for them under those conditions I think they would change their manner of thinking much more quickly than otherwise. Most of all I appreciated his (maybe underlying) message that your life and what you make of it are your own, and you can go as far as you choose.

The topic of free and/or open source software is one that my wife is familiar with, as I am a somewhat vocal advocate of both. Since I started using Linux two years ago I have followed the Free Software and Open Source movements fairly closely. While I don't know all of the nuances of the GNU General Public License and I can't clearly mark the dividing line between the GNU system and the rest of the utilities in Linux, I have come to a conclusion about the difference between them. It seems to me that the Free Software Foundation, led by Richard Stallman, is advocating a philosophical ideal, while the Open Source Initiative is striving for more of a practical, use-able compromise. In light of the overnight "tanking" of Red Hat's and VA Linux's IPOs, it is relatively easy to dismiss the financial viability of either model. However, Red Hat is now arguably a successful business. VA Linux operates Sourceforge, Slashdot, and a couple other resources for the Open Source community. While neither of these two companies has Microsoft's cash flow, I would say that both are successful. I am not aware of any such companies operating strictly within the ideological area covered by Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation. This is not to say there isn't one, but I think that the difference between philosophical ideal and practical compromise may be a cause.

Today's press conference highlighted some very distinct memories and experiences for me. In the early spring of 2002, I started selling stuff on Ebay and quickly turned that into my major source of income since the company I was working for (partly owned by my brother) was going out of business. A week later one of my brother's partners offered me a job in another company he owned. The very next week he left on a family vacation to Europe and, much to my surprise, he left me in charge of the other 4 employees and our relationships with the companies we contracted with. For the next 2 weeks while he was gone I worked very hard to hold everything together. When Steve (my boss) returned from Europe he pulled me aside one day and told me he wanted to make me the office/business manager and basically double my salary. For the next several months I worked long hours, sometimes 70 or 80 per week, to keep everything running smoothly. Then two things happened that bring me to the issue of personal and professional ethics. First, things on the Internet started to change in a way that made it increasingly difficult for a small, individually run business (99% of our clients) to establish a presence for their business online. Second, I met and began dating the girl who would become my wife. Professionally, I had a major problem with the fact that the salespeople were still telling the people they referred to us that they could in essence get something for nothing and make loads of money almost instantly with our help. Personally, I no longer had the desire to work 80 hours per week because I wanted to spend time with Nicole. Both of these things eventually led to me leaving the company. Having had that experience makes me concerned with the perception of programmers working around the clock. I am more than willing to put in a full work week of 40 hours and to work hard during that time, but my family is now a major priority in my life and as much as I have an ethical obligation to my employer, I have a personal obligation to spend time with my family.

Today's trial and discussion revolved around one of my biggest fears as a programmer: that the company I work for would own everything I wrote while employed by it. For a company to own the rights to the software I write not only at work, but in my own personal time, is one of the biggest killers of creative thought I can imagine. If a project I worked on at home because I saw a need for it in my own personal computing was automatically owned by my employer, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to produce anything. During the course of my studies here at BYU I have come up with a couple of ideas for tools that would make my life easier, and it is nice to know that when I build them, I will be the decider of whether to "Open Source" it, or to try and make some money by selling it. It would also be a comforting thing to know that while employed somewhere, I could still contribute to any of the Open Source projects I frequently use. I am a firm supporter of software copyrights (but NOT software patents, which is an entirely different topic), and believe that an employer has every right to prevent their commercial products from being copied or reverse-engineered by their own employees. However, I don't at all like the idea that an employer can have the rights to work done by their employees on their own time and on something totally unrelated to what they do at work. After reading about a situation where this happened I have resolved to read very carefully any contract I sign with any company I ever work for.

Ransom Love's presentation on the new family history technology was very inspiring. When I was in high school there was a part of me that thought it would be nice to be a CES teacher, either in Seminary or the Institute program. Despite the fact that teaching is not the highest-paying discipline, I really felt that I could do some good in the world teaching the gospel to young people. Being here at BYU and taking some very high quality religion classes has caused that small sliver of my sub-conscious to resurface. During my time here I have been touched by the professors (not just religion professors) who are here because they want to be here and who devote themselves to building the kingdom in their own field of study, and by motivating us to do and be better. The amount of computing research and resources the church is putting into family history research has given me hope that I can still satisfy that desire to devote time and energy to the church as well as making a more comfortable living for my family. Hopefully when I have finished school I can have a little time to contribute work and research to the church, and maybe someday I will be able to teach at one of the universities belonging to the church and fulfill both of my dreams.

I quited enjoyed the video we watched today. I always enjoy learning about the events that shaped the computing world as we know it today. It was especially relevant in light of the agreement Novell just made with Microsoft. As I work in an office full of Linux and Mac users, we have had many discussions about Microsoft (usually about how Windows drives us nuts). It seems a little bit fishy to me that Novell, who has refused offers from Microsoft in the past, now thinks the time to join forces has come. Novell's current state of uncertainty may have some effect on this, but historically allying with Microsoft in any way has been the beginning of the end for everyone who has done it. I'm sure that Microsoft threatening legal action over use of their proprietary technology in Mono, WINE, and other software that makes coexistence of Windows and Open Source Software also has something to do with this agreement. All things considered, it almost seems to me that Novell didn't have much choice in the matter, and that the only reason Microsoft was a generous as they were in the agreement was to avoid more incurring any more pressure over their anti-competition, monopolistic business practices. The whole issue has reminded me that as I begin to take on larger projects and prepare to go into the industry I need to be very careful about what contracts I agree to and what technology I use.

The video we watched today was very amusing to me. I don't recall seeing so many different ways to hedge and beat around the bush by so many people in such a short time. What really got my attention was that it wasn't the programmers who were the instigators of the problem, or even the owners of the businesses that went public, but the investment bankers. I have never been overly fond of the stereotypical upper level banking executives, even though I'm a firm believer in the capitalistic system. Even though I was in high school and on my mission and relatively unaffected by the dot com bust I irks me to see that a handful of investment banking executives can have that kind of impact on our society. It may not even be the magnitude of the impact, but the intent and the duration that is the main problem. I owned a business before I started school. For a short time, that business was my sole source of income, and I believed I had a pretty good foundation. However, I would never have dreamed of trying to take it public based on the short duration I had operated it for. That the investment banking executives were so hungry for IPO kickbacks as to take untested and unprepared businesses public drives home the fact that money can indeed be the "root of all evil."