1
edit
Changes
→Is there a room for everyone in Open Source?
====Is there a room for everyone in Open Source?====
[http://sparc.senecacollege.ca/pub/fsoss/2007/Oct25/2PM/LawrenceMandelOpenComDev.ogg Another talk (video)] I attended today went to great lengths to try and dilute the meaning of open source. The speakers attempted to propose that the term “open source” is open to interpretation and that we should be willing to let it mean different things to different people. To each their own? I’m not sure I totally agree with that. The [http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative ] has 10 rules that create a definition of open source as they promote it. I agree with their definition and feel that the open source that I want to see in education and beyond is one that follows that model as closely as possible. It would be a shame to see the term “open source” lose its meaning and to become something that just means feedback is encouraged or bugs can be opened. Open Source should be something like what Organic tries to be – something you can count on.
What is happening to Organic could happen to Open Source. People want in on it because they see that more and more communities are gravitating to the genuine transparency and accountability of these declarations. Where big business tries to take Organic and slap it on their existing products with as little change as possible for meeting the requirements, bigger businesses are trying to find ways to stake a claim in open source with as few compromises as can be made. This is where the business model could really use an open source makeover. To take open source and fit it to the current structure of most capitalist businesses is to try and make open source something it cannot be. The way I see it open source is not meant for business, it’s meant for community.