[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[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:
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:
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)