1
edit
Changes
→Parting Food for Thought
[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 happens to the term "Organic " - the attempts to sully its reputation as with the attempt to pass a bill that allows [http://www.organic-foods-mom.com/sewage-sludge.html sewage sludge] to be used on crops - 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 Companies are using the term "Open Source" to raise 'perceived quality' rather than 'real quality'. Just as corporations like [http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2006/nf20060329_6971.htm WalMart] are trying to take "Organic " and slap it on their existing products with while making as little change few changes as possible for meeting the requirements, bigger businesses to how they operate IT companies are trying to find ways to stake a claim in open source with as few compromises as can be made. The scary part is that these big companies have clout lobbying to change regulations instead of changing their own business structure. 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.
This is not to say that business and open source cannot or should not mingle. I would like to see more businesses try and use the open source models and build upon the knowledge base that already exists. It’s going to take more than just steering the ship in a new direction, I believe it might take building a new ship, perhaps a hybrid?
====Conclusion====
What attracts me to open source is that there is room for learning, teaching, arguing, sharing, helping others, working hard on projects that you believe in and bring a part of something that is bigger than your own interest. Today I walked away from the symposium full of confidence that there is something for me in open source. Even though the projects that I will work on don’t exist yet, the framework is there for me to get started on them. The community exists. There are some really smart people who care a lot about this stuff and will keep it alive while at the same time passing along their enthusiasm and knowledge using tools that get more and more accessible each day.
I really want to see this open source education structure where teachers and students are practically the same. Where learning and teaching is something done by both at any given time. I want to see businesses casting aside the imperatives of creating and maintaining proprietary software and instead embracing their user base and starting to create with instead of for them.
After the conference a lively discussion was held in our [[DPS909]] class and I really want had the opportunity to know – 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 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 does an open source government would look like? ====For Dave====[[Image:Wordcount.png]]
