When considering open source products a new user, and especially an inexperienced user, should be able to count on a particular meaning of open source. They should be able to trust that association without having to do the research themselves each time they want to try something new. Just as a shopper would want to buy an organic apple and know that there are standards protecting the way that apple is grown, an open source association on a piece of software should inspire the same confidence.
My last thought After the conference a lively discussion was held in our [[DPS909]] class and I had the opportunity to hear about many of the other talks, including the Facebook talk and this lead to quite a conversation about '''why''' people (read: companies) would open source their projects. Most of what came of this was a debate that covered what I have written about here but also brought up some interesting points about the mentality of the companies who choose this path. Some reasons might be because a project has little use to anyone else, or so that the company has their own open source version (eg. Microsoft's version of [http://sourceforge.net/ SourceForge], [http://www.codeplex.com/ CodePlex]) of a popular project. We also touched on the importance of committers, that these will be the people that companies go after to pull into their fold so that they can have influence in projects. It's a brave new world where perhaps there will be a lot of developers working hard with little compensation but committers will be wooed on a regular basis. What I came away from that class with was the idea that in order to be successful in open source it's important to gain committing status and to be a visible member of the communities you work in. To have an internet trail of bugs filed, fixed, blog posts about projects worked on, tangible evidence of your role in a community will be an asset in the future job market - be it open source or commercial. I'm taking this to heart, while at the same time it sounds like trying to be a politician whose votes can be bought. Sounds like the more responsibility you take on in a community the more you will have to weigh your decisions against the subject wishes of your fellow community members and corporate interests. An extreme balancing act played out in a very theoretical field. ====Parting Food for Thought====Speaking of politicians - I wonder what would an open source government would look like?
