[ba-unrev-talk] The Open Source discussion continues
Today's contribution involves three reads that toss around a lot of
intellectual horsepower on the "limitations" of open source. (01)
This one first:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-933913.html
The very real limitations of open source (02)
The talkback letters are particularly enlightening. For instance, they
bring in Maslow's Hierarchy (e.g. http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM )
to show important relationships between the programmers and the projects. (03)
and this one second:
http://www.oreillynet.com/1536.html
Dear John: Regarding "The very real limitations of open source" (04)
This article cites Sourcefire http://www.sourcefire.org/ a company that
landed $2million in venture capital based on open source work. (05)
"I think the real problem with Carroll's argument is that he bases it not
on the real world application and adoption of open source software
development by both big business, governments and individuals, but instead
on the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation. In essence he ignores
the fact that many in the open source community are not in total agreement
with the outlook of the FSF, he assumes that the motivations of all open
source developers are equal, and he ignores the business models that have
been built around open source software. " (06)
And, there's always the slashdot version, where I got this from in the
first place:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/08/2334206.shtml?tid=99 (07)
In my view, all sides in the discussion mentioned above have valid and
important points to make. The essence seems (to me) to fall on the side of
the difficulty associated with "making a living" while operating in the
open source arena. (08)
With projects like the OHS, there is a _very real and pressing need_ to
make sure that the following issues are properly dealt with:
1- The software must be free from encumbrance from evolving in any
natural direction needed to satisfy the requirement that the software
continue to play an important role in a world of complex and crucial
issues, and which is evolving continuously.
2- The software must available to all who need it.
3- There may be other reasons I am missing here, but those two are my
interpretation of the essence of Douglas Engelbart's "call to arms" (my
term) for the development of, at once, OHS infrastructure, and a culture
adapted to using that infrastructure. (09)
Because of the OHS needs, there is a profound and convincing argument that
"open source" (whatever that means) is the prime option for operations
aligned with the Bootstrap Alliance. It's the "open source" (whatever that
means) part that, I think, is of value to hash out in some organized
fashion. I'm not sure that an email list is suitable, unless the players
would behave, making appropriate use of the subject line and staying on thread. (010)
In the event that there is interest in attempting to do an EmailIBIS
discussion, I'll toss out right here a "leading" question that those who
wish to respond to would paste into the subject line, e.g. re:
<question>. Appropriate responses to questions are further questions that
refine the original one, or ideas (hypotheses) that attempt to answer the
question. One question can be followed by many ideas, and many further
questions. Arguments (pro/con) don't start until someone wants to rebut or
support an idea. (011)
My opening question would be this:
What are the licensing issues that surround the needs of an OHS? (012)
Background: recall that I enumerated 2 (possibly more) above: evolutionary
freedom and "free" availability. (013)
Personally, I can see such a question branching out to several kinds of
"sub" questions, and I can see quite a few responsive ideas. (014)
Bonus teaser: I believe I can see a logical, maybe even valid, thread that
shows why the GPL is not suited to the OHS proposition. (015)
If you wish, have at it... (016)
Jack (017)