- I am not an Open Source fanatic. Nor do I have any source that
circulates in an 'open' environment as prescribed by the GPL or any similar license. It is quite possible that I do not fully understand the implications and intentions of Open Source
That being said...
There are Open Source projects that are not collaborative. Many
projects exist entirely within the scope of a single developer.
A glance at Sourceforge will show many projects (don't look at the
most active ones) that contain only a single developer - and he (or
she) isn't looking for anyone else.
Open Source is about ownership - or rather the lack of it, or maybe
the community ownership. It is
the promise that no one will send corporate attack lawyers after you
if you happen to borrow a snippet of code - and let others use yours
just as easily.
Here, on Everything2 we are so often troubled by the
Everything2 Copyright Problem. Poetry published recently cannot be
legally noded. And quite rightly too - someone has placed their livelihood
on selling copies of the book or album.
Unfortunately, many companies (and people in the general public) are
making use of the 'Open Source' buzzword - in most cases to mean
Open Source does foster collaboration, but that is not the be all and
end all of Open Source. Open Source is giving to the community, and only
asking that what be made with it be given away too rather than sold.
Most often, the things open sourced are ideas with utility, however this
doesn't have to be the case.
Hypothetically, picture a song that has been 'Open Sourced', and that
anyone can do covers of it without having to pay a royalty... The
artist is free to take the song, modify it and enhance it. Others would
then be able to work with that song. All the while, without worrying
about infringing on any copyrights.
Open Source is about taking an idea - be it an emotion, a tune, or a
process - and being able to freely use it and modify it and give it