This is really nothing more than some company saying that they can apply the "open source" development model to a variety of software projects. The Open Source community is just one such "gated community" where you share your source with everyone or you can't be part of the community. No matter how you look at it, that's a gate.
The point here is not that some licensing model is better than another, it is that a particular development model is better than another. The open source developement model is radical because it flattens heirarchies and is an anathema to bureaucracy. People will do well to adopt it as their development process, even if the software produced is a closed product. The lesson learned is that open communication channels and peer equality produces better software.
Gated open source (lower-case, not branded) software will allow the development model to enter a corporate world in desperate need of some hierarchy flattening. Even small, traditional companies can't get over the failed "you can't do that you're a peon" mentality. How often have you seen technology decisions made behind closed doors by people who are hire on the food chain but don't have a clue about the technology? This is something the open source development model is designed to prevent. If you can do it, prove it. Discuss all ideas openly and select the best one.
After this develpment model is adopted, it will natural lead to more openness. People have to understand what having a voice means before they can understand that everybody should have one.
The license issue is a distribution model and should be discussed seperately from the development model. Closed source software developed using the open source development model will eventually suffer if the wrong distribution model is being used, but we shouldn't discourage the spirit of this model from being adopted just because we are a few years ahead of our peers.
The FCC has made LPFM (Low Power FM) legal, but it is under attack by the NAB. While the cost for the transmitter and antenna is not bad, ~$2500, the other costs associated with running a station and the difficulty of managing it can prevent folks from getting involved. Enter Open Source: we can create the rest of the radio station based on models of distributed communication and cooperation established on the Internet. Making it possible for people to speak their mind to the community and have the community interact with the station via the Internet. Technologies like FreeNet make it possible to share resources (music and information) so members of the radio station can easily produce the local content required by the LPFM license. Sharing the software to do this makes it easier for groups to slip out from under the corporate thumb.
Those who passionately believe in freedom of expression and consumers who value creative storytelling have a lot on the line as the judge considers this matter.
Ain't that the truth.
Open Source Writers Group might be a good resource
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 2
The Open Source Writers Group has some good information and resources on this topic. They held a BOF as ALS which was very informative.
A guilty MS should only be required to open the file formats it uses. That's it. Linux will find its place without the help from the DOJ. Anything else the DOJ could do would only hurt other industry players later on.
Slashdot Mirror
This is really nothing more than some company saying that they can apply the "open source" development model to a variety of software projects. The Open Source community is just one such "gated community" where you share your source with everyone or you can't be part of the community. No matter how you look at it, that's a gate.
The point here is not that some licensing model is better than another, it is that a particular development model is better than another. The open source developement model is radical because it flattens heirarchies and is an anathema to bureaucracy. People will do well to adopt it as their development process, even if the software produced is a closed product. The lesson learned is that open communication channels and peer equality produces better software.
Gated open source (lower-case, not branded) software will allow the development model to enter a corporate world in desperate need of some hierarchy flattening. Even small, traditional companies can't get over the failed "you can't do that you're a peon" mentality. How often have you seen technology decisions made behind closed doors by people who are hire on the food chain but don't have a clue about the technology? This is something the open source development model is designed to prevent. If you can do it, prove it. Discuss all ideas openly and select the best one.
After this develpment model is adopted, it will natural lead to more openness. People have to understand what having a voice means before they can understand that everybody should have one.
The license issue is a distribution model and should be discussed seperately from the development model. Closed source software developed using the open source development model will eventually suffer if the wrong distribution model is being used, but we shouldn't discourage the spirit of this model from being adopted just because we are a few years ahead of our peers.
So now they're claiming to have invented ClearTape? Make's you wonder what else they're going to lay claim to?
The FCC has made LPFM (Low Power FM) legal, but it is under attack by the NAB. While the cost for the transmitter and antenna is not bad, ~$2500, the other costs associated with running a station and the difficulty of managing it can prevent folks from getting involved. Enter Open Source: we can create the rest of the radio station based on models of distributed communication and cooperation established on the Internet. Making it possible for people to speak their mind to the community and have the community interact with the station via the Internet. Technologies like FreeNet make it possible to share resources (music and information) so members of the radio station can easily produce the local content required by the LPFM license. Sharing the software to do this makes it easier for groups to slip out from under the corporate thumb.
Those who passionately believe in freedom of expression and consumers who value creative storytelling have a lot on the line as the judge considers this matter.
Ain't that the truth.
The Open Source Writers Group has some good information and resources on this topic. They held a BOF as ALS which was very informative.
A guilty MS should only be required to open the file formats it uses. That's it. Linux will find its place without the help from the DOJ. Anything else the DOJ could do would only hurt other industry players later on.