Openness: June 2004 Archives
Note how in the passage below (from Open Source as Weapon) the argument is made that the competition soon will move away from the actual code (everyone would have access to the same software code) and into its usage and integration in a particular context.
Excerpt:
"Experts tick off compelling reasons why a vendor of closed-source software might release code: to make the product more ubiquitous, speed development, get fresh ideas from outside the company, to complement a core revenue stream, foster a new technology -- and to stymie a competitor.
In fact, giving away some free company IP can go a long way toward making someone else's IP worth beans.
Martin Fink, author of "The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source," notes that, while all commercial software decreases in value over time, open source drastically speeds the process. The huge community of developers working together can produce a competitive open source product fast, and they'll add features for which a closed-source vendor would want to charge extra.
Finally, customers can acquire the software at no cost, even though they may pay for customization, integration and support."
Openness, Publication, and Scholarship is an interesting philosophical perspective attempting to frame publications and scholarship within the various concepts of openness such as "open access", "open data", "open source", "open entry", and "open discourse".
To this I like to modify "open data" with "open content", since content has broader scope than data, and perhaps add "open communication" as the functional link between "open access" and "open discourse".
In A Really Open Election CLIVE THOMPSON makes his point that only open source e-voting systems can be trusted for elections.
I made the same argument back last year in the following blog entries: e-voting systems must be open source, and e-voting systems ought to be open source.
