From: Karl Anderson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 14:21:22 PDT
"Dave Winer" <email@example.com> writes:
[opensource means users are members who help with creation - at least,
I think this is what you're asking about]
> Is that theory or have you had any personal experience of that working? From
> what I've seen small utilities can be evolved that way. Otherwise it appears
> to be a myth of open source. An often-repeated one of course. Open source
> makes everything great. Where's the evidence? Dave
There are a few large (and successful) opensource projects with many
active contributors. Emacs! And the subprojects of emacs - I think
gnus is the best mail/newsreader out there (er, for geeks who can
battle the configuration and docs), and that's an obvious case of a
large community of developers seeing a need and working together to
put the parts in place.
Zope being another, I think. Digital Creations spends lots of time on
the core, and interested outside people or groups add components;
those components that the community wants get heavy use and testing,
sometimes attracting developers, sometimes remaining the work of a
small group. The development of the core is also influenced by where
the community is taking Zope.
The opensource hype is so overblown that when people see the obvious
counterexamples, they want to disbelieve the whole thing, but it *can*
If you're asking about the other question - does a project need a pro
at the top - I think yes, a project needs an owner (individual or
closeknit group), but I do believe that the gift economy or reputation
economy works here - it's worthwhile to put in opensource creative
time, so anyone who can afford that time has a good chance of the
investment paying off. But I don't see that it's cut and dried
between the cathedral and the bazaar.
Not to say that opensource == worthwhile project that will gain
developers working together in an effective way, of course. But it's
not true that opensource == project that can't gain developers working
together in an effective way.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen D. Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Kragen Sitaker" <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <Eskenazi@aol.com>;
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Are you an open source developer?
> > Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > PS: I see this as exactly analogous to the debate in music between
> > > > artists and the industry. The artists should define the industry, not
> > > > the other way around, of course, imho.
> > >
> > > I don't know if I agree. I think the fans should define the whole
> > > thing, not the artists or the record companies. That's what
> > > open-source software is about: software distributed on terms favorable
> > > to the users, not just the creators. Terms that make the users
> > > members, not just consumers.
> > In particular, terms that allow and encourage 'members' to join in further
> > creation.
> > This is the basic difference in philosophy: are there few 'professional'
> > creators or is everyone potentially a creator at one level and for desired
> > topics. The later model is obviously more appealing to those not
> > receiving heavy
> > > --
> > > <email@example.com> Kragen Sitaker
> > > Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves
> > > possess.
> > > -- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the
> > sdw
> > --
> > Insta.com - Revolutionary E-Business Communication
> > firstname.lastname@example.org Stephen D. Williams Senior Consultant/Architect
> > 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax
-- Karl Anderson email@example.com http://www.monkey.org/~kra/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 13:46:51 PDT