Re: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

Andrus, you are exactly right.  But my point is that in order to  
protect their own interests Apple would have to provide the resources  
to approve developers, guide development, and provide QA resources.   
And probably many other things I'm overlooking right now.  Open  
sourcing something is not without investment if the original owner  
cares about what happens to it.

janine

On Aug 24, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

>
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Also, as I said a few days ago in the context of a GVC Sitemaker  
>> discussion, it's a very risky thing for a company to open-source a  
>> product they depend on themselves.  They have to have resources  
>> available to monitor and control what happens to that source;   
>> they have to maintain a high level of quality and keep things  
>> moving in a direction that is compatible with their own needs.
>
> Since this line of reasoning is being used more and more often, I  
> guess some debunking is due ;-)
>
> This fear comes from not understanding how open source works. If a  
> company doesn't want open development, just opening the code is a  
> pretty minor benefit to the users. So why bother? Just to claim  
> "open source-ness" for marketing purposes?
>
> On the other hand if the company does it to grow the community  
> around the code, then it has to invest into building the community,  
> and give control to the community (otherwise this is just a  
> gimmick). If this is the case, the company must understand the  
> dynamics involved and implement procedures that would make the  
> project flourish. A few points to note:
>
> * Projects that were taken over and messed up by strangers usually  
> had all signs of abandonware before that happened. I.e. the owners  
> didn't care.
>
> * You don't have to give commit access to total strangers.  
> Volunteer developers need to understand that they have to  
> demonstrate the ability to fit in the specific community before  
> they are granted commit rights. This means they'll have to submit  
> their contributions via patches for as long as it takes to build  
> trust.
>
> * All development should be done in public. I.e. if I am about to  
> blow a subproject from the repo or rename all classes to follow a  
> new naming convention that I just invented, a proper notice to the  
> mailing list is due. And others have the right to veto the change  
> (if they can explain why).
>
> * There is source control to do conflict resolution after the fact.  
> From experience rolling back is rarely needed, except for the most  
> trivial cases of human errors.
>
> Try it, it works :-)
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WebObjects-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk