Open Source Methods Useful Way Beyond Software

Tom Steinberg writes "Former head of policy at the British Prime Minister's office, Geoff Mulgan, has co-authored a paper on uses of Open Source methods in arenas far beyond the normal Sourceforge universe. The paper is jointly written with Tom Steinberg, head of UK civic hacking fraternity mySociety and explores the use of open source methods to improve academic peer review, drafting of legislation and even media regulation."

Comments

In a democracy/republic

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the law already open source? Sure, there are maintainers, but it's possible to submit changes and get them approved.

yep..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am thinking about open sourcing my sex life.

Re:yep..

[Ignignot]

You better hope no one installs any trojans through your back door...

Re:yep..

[ubuntu]

Open-sourcing your sex life may or may not not be the best route for you. Let me explain some of your different licensing options, since I've already been down this road and have learned a lot of painful lessons.

If you open-source your sex life, you won't likely increase your userbase as much as you'd think. You can expect at best 1-2% of the total users (much like "laissez-faire" Linux, hot, sexy, and openly available as it may be). Haggard old Windows (technically under a much stricter one-user "monogamous" license), on the other hand, has 90% of the mindshare. There's a lot more hot coeds interested in investing their time into a long-term legal, registered copy of Windows than Linux, if you know what I mean. Women feel comforted by the strict EULA "vows" that you take when you click "I DO" during the install. If you opt for a proprietary, single-user sex life license, you can be sure of a certain level of solid usage, but unlike Linux, there is really no thrill or excitement involved. The Windows GUI gets tired and stale very quickly, is generally considered "crippleware" and won't do a lot of the naughty things Linux does for you without paying dearly for the extra functionality, and is prone to "bloat" -- Windows seems to double in size every few years. HOWEVER -- the secret of Windows happiness for you, my friend, is that cheap and dirty copies of Windows are easily "acquired" when nobody's looking, and most people have either considered going for a quickie download or are running an illicit second copy somewhere besides their main computer right now. I have a legal copy of Win98 running, but I UPGRADED to a secret install of 2000 on the side, and it's a lot smoother running... unfortunately, no OS ever went down as frequently as my original Win98 did, except when I experimented with Amiga in college.

The main problems with running an illicit copy of Windows are that

a)you KNOW that a lot of other people are enjoying the same copy that you are at the same time as you, and

b) Windows will definitely lead you to viruses, bugs of all sorts that are hard to get rid of, and in the end, ultimate disappointment and regret.

What I'm saying is you don't have to announce you're open to actually BE open. And if you're married, you should DEFINITELY tell your wife that you fully respect her Intellectual Property rights, onerous and burdensome as they may be, and that you respect her patent monopoly despite the fact that she never seems to use it. If you mess with your wife (the legal owner), you will end up in a place worse than death -- alone and settling for the most pathetic OS of all -- Windows "ME".

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The open source method is not a unique concept. It's based on the concept of free and open collaboration, such as in most science disciplines!

Re:Duh

[lionheart1327]

I know I'll probably get modded down for this because of the stigma of the evil "C" word, but here we go.

Open source, and the volunteer way in which it is done, is basically the utopian communism that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. were striving to get to, but fucked up.

Real communism is not people being forced to be "equal". It is the unselfish sharing of everything, and volunteering your time and effort for the greater good.

Now, people can't seem to share their physical goods, but on the Internet it seems that some people are willing to share virtual goods. When it doesn't really hurt you to give your neighbor a hand, it seems that people are willing to do it.

Of course, there are those like the RIAA and the MPAA, that are completely against it, but most Slashdotters seem to be for it.

So maybe Bill Gates is right, and Linux is communist?

Well, if you take away the prejudice against the "C" word caused by decades of propoganda, maybe thats actually a Good Thing?

Re:Duh

[Analogy Man]

Then there is that other 'C' word...Christian.

Talk about making oneself flamebait. Christ proposed that people be kind, good, generous, loving to each other...(Not because it was required for salvation but because it demonstrated you appreciation for the grace of God).

So, giving your fellow man your time, energy and expertise over the internet is a Christian thing to do.

Be an open source contributor! Be a Christian Communists.

Finally it will be time

[tezza]

To fork the government.

Re:Finally it will be time

[youngerpants]

it certainly makes a change from the government forking us

Academic Peer Review

[gowen]

One problem with an Open Source approach to modifying academic papers, is that the original author has a strong interest in maintaining sole authorship : for better or worse, their future appointments pretty much depend on publication history.

Re:Academic Peer Review

[krysith]

Isn't part of open source keeping track of who made which changes? That is a beneficial thing, especially in cases where there is more than one author. I have read academic papers with 30+ authors, and I never knew which one did the modeling and who built the hardware. Sure, if I had investigated or asked, I could have find out easily, but having that recorded in the paper would be a bonus.

In addition, it would also help in cases where a grad student did all the work but the professor gets most of the credit. If the change history shows that the grad student did all the work, maybe they will actually get the credit they deserve?

Re:Academic Peer Review

[gowen]

I have read academic papers with 30+ authors

Sure, that's pretty common in some fields (Biotech, for example). But 300+ authors? 3000? How many authors would you say the Linux kernel has?

If the change history shows that the grad student did all the work, maybe they will actually get the credit they deserve?

Well, that does presuppose that check-ins correspond to workload. And remember, if a supervisor has the original idea and devises the techniques to answer some question, and the grad student does all the grunt work, who's to say that the grad student deserves the credit? In that scenario (not universal, but not uncommon) he's replaceable in a way the supervisor isn't.

Re:Open source and human nature

[h4rr4r]

Yes it would could then work, and there is already a name for this system...
Marxism
For the Americans in the crowed conveniently leave out the fact that it is a form of communism when you mention it. Otherwise you will be stoned to death or moderated into oblivion as I am sure I will be

Academic research itself _is_ ...

[slabbe]

a lot like open source. And has been so for quite some time. I publish my results, stating what I have been doing and precisely how. If I can as many other people as possible to use my results and ideas, I will gain respect in the scientific community (a lot of references). Regarding the publication process, open archives such as arxiv have been gaining in popularity for a long time, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions

Re:Open source and human nature

[futuresheep]

Open source model does nto work well with this inherent greediness. IF one day we humans change our intrinsic nature, open source model might well replace the current individualist/capitalist model.

Open Source can work just fine with a "individualist/capitalist model". I think this is more a symptom of the industry than of human nature. Take a look at the culinary industry. There are two methods of operating:

1) Proprietary/Closed recipies. 2) Shared/Open recipies.

There are plenty of examples of companies and restaraunts making money using either method.

Some, like Coca Cola and KFC, choose to guard their recipies and keep them secret. However, with some good reverse engineering, you can attempt to recreate those products.

Some, like many non chain restaraunts, will openly share the recipies for their menu items. Their food and ingredients are not kept secret, and if you can take it home and make it better, feel free!

In the big picture, both sides of the industry realize that at it's core, food is all made from the same base ingredients, using the same basic production processes, and that in the end, success is delivered by the perceived value of the item purchased. Sharing or not sharing what goes into that item is a decision made by the manufacturer.

Natural greediness

[ites]

Humans are naturally selfish, yes, but this does not necessarily conflict with free software. Adam Smith pointed out that society is driven by selfishness but still creates large mutually-beneficial collaborations.

Free software is easily misunderstood, even by those who participate. Really, it's not about altruism at all.

When I explain free software to non-technical people I compare it to a sport. Think of a game, in which the players compete to design the most creative and useful inventions, using software as their medium. The players keep score in terms of "kudos" and the best players - the key people (almost always men) behind winning projects - have a very high status, much like stars in any field.

Software is an excellent medium because the costs of entry and of collaboration are so low. It enables a true meritocracy in which teams of any size can join together to attack problems of any size (and share kudos, if they succeed).

Free software is not altruistic. Every player knows that if they hit it big, they will have a valuable consultancy job, book deal, conference gigs, or other lucrative opportunity. The best players sublimate this motivation so they can focus on the "pure play" but that does not mean they don't have the motivation, ultimately. Try getting the best players to join your project and you start to see. It's very much "sports for smart people", and every player is very aware of their value.

The Game is becoming politically sensitive because it has a side-product, namely a cornucopia of increasingly valuable software. This flood of cheap software has started to revolutionise the world and launched some major proxy wars between established players, threatened by it, and those who understand what's happening and want to profit from it. You can almost slice the IT industry into two halves: those who hate the Game, and those on the side-lines, cheering and throwing roses. The amounts of money involved are huge - despite the 'free' label - and already influencing global politics.

Can the Game move into other areas? Yes, in two ways. First, it's always been there. Competitive intellectual effort is what has filled the libraries over the ages. Nothing new here except the scale and speed of the process, on the back of cheap global internet communications. Secondly, more and more traditional intellectual processes become software. Look at Wikipedia. The Game can be played with any process that can be held as "source code".

Free software/open source is not a "model" that can be applied elsewhere... but it is a paradigm (I hate that word, but it's accurate here) that changes the way professionals work. Stop being an employee, become a player. For businesses, sponsoring open source projects can be a cheaper and more reliable way to get essential software than traditional projects.

There is no conflict between free software and capitalism. Indeed, free software expresses the "liberal" ideal of free trade with minimal government intervention. People do things for self-interest but economics is not a zero-sum game. Free software is highly capitalistic, depending the individual's capital of ideas and skills.