Newbie question on code vetting
bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au
Sat May 6 08:49:07 CEST 2006
<william.boquist at gte.net> writes:
> The overall goal is to remove a barrier to more widespread use of
> Open Source - growing the mindshare dedicated to it and potentially
> shrinking the mindshare dedicated to commercially-produced software.
While I don't agree with the dichotomy you present -- much of the free
software available, especially among the mature and popular projects,
is commercially produced, so the two evidently aren't opposed -- I
laud your goal of attempting to spread the use of free software at the
expense of non-free software.
> A couple of responders to my earlier notes wrote something like "do
> you ask the same thing of closed source vendors?" The answer is "no,
> not at present"
The obvious thing to note at that point, then, is that an organisation
which applies such a double standard to its vendors -- existing
software vendors can continue to have appallingly obscure processes
and not be held accountable, but free software's outstandingly open
processes need to spend volunteer effort to become even *more* open to
become worthy of attention -- needs to evolve or die.
A less obvious thing to note is that the free software model allows
anyone to get involved and do the work they perceive needs doing, or
to sponsor it to make it happen. If an organisation needs a whole lot
of work put in to create or improve the types of documents it likes to
see, what is stopping that organisation from doing so, or offering
compensation for others to do so?
\ "For mad scientists who keep brains in jars, here's a tip: why |
`\ not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for freshness?" -- Jack |
_o__) Handey |
More information about the Python-list