Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Continuing the Open Source discussion

Author:Dave Winer
Posted:9/16/2000; 8:43:05 AM
Topic:Continuing Dave's Open Source discussion
Msg #:21390 (In response to 21388)
Prev/Next:21389 / 21391

Re item number 2, how does my definition of open source differ with that of the "open source community"? It's important to me because they attempt to define me and my work in their definitions, that's why humoring them is not really an option.

With OPML, you got it exactly right. After the experience with RSS we don't want any misunderstandings. I want to be able to finish the thought. And that's also why, at the outset, I wanted to be very clear about what it is, and be open for discussion, in case it attempts to define someone else, I want to avoid that if possible.

Freedom is an idea that's much bigger than Richard Stallman or any individual who's alive today.

Re my luxury, I've had that luxury even when I was broke. I don't fit into companies. I think you'll find that's a much more important difference, when it comes to creating revolutionary or even interesting software than whether or not the source is shipped.

I remember in the early 80s when Mitch Kapor was forced to ship the source for VisiPlot, not because of Richard or Eric or Tim, or whoever, but the environment he programmed for, BASIC, forced him to. He shrugged his shoulders "It's a rat's nest" he said. That was probably in 1981. No doubt some programmer somewhere learned from it. (Sometimes source is shipped without any philosophical reason at all.)

Anyway, when I say the conversation focuses on companies, I think you're missing the point of saying that. Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft. If you define yourself as anti-something, that defines you as much as saying you're pro-something. That's one of the riders that's been attached, and imho, that's the bug. When people lump all commercial development into "Microsoft" they tend to treat highly productive five-person development teams in with 40,000-employee development teams. Something gets thrown out in the bathwater, the two beasts behave quite differently, but on the other side of the wall they tend not to "get" that.

One of the reasons why I want to find out what the "open source community" is is because I want to read their definitions and process them. I want to take out all the anti-Microsoft stuff and see what's left and if it's in any way different from my definition.

If we go through that transformation we might find that except for the corporate focus, we're in complete agreement. I have an intuition that we are. When I posted my example a couple of weeks ago, Tim O'Reilly agreed that it was open source. Well that was an interesting outcome. I wonder what ESR would say.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:43 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.