7/15/2007 10:57 AMOpenDictator wrote:
Platy! You mean the OS Marketing bit? Is it too serious? Well... I _am_ having some fun with it and must say it is really keeping me busy.
So, I guess if it's fun for me...that's a good reason to blog right? Of course I should try to make it fun for you as well. Any ideas how to do that?
7/24/2007 8:20 PM
platy4friends wrote:
wwll - your last post is a while ago already. Educate and entertain me. I'll try to judge (again) at a later stage Reply to this
10/5/2007 3:50 PMburt wrote:
Hmmm... open source marketing. That (and the interview) sounds good, but would you care to attack a (somewhat intentionally oblivious) statement?
Open Source is a term mostly used for software, where the source (code) is a requirement for contribution and or alteration. Open Source software initiatives allow everyone access to the back-end of the product. Many other commercial software companies do listen to customers' wishes. They'll implement feature requests themselves.
Comparing this to let's say a supermarket, the latter idea would be the suggestion box at the entrance. An open source supermarket would allow people into the storage area, let people replace products to more logical places, etcetera. (This wouldn't work, i know ;-> )
I think that brain storming is often wrongfully called or taken for Open Source, but in a way brainstorming offers only an indirect way to contribute to something, while the whole point of open source should be to allow direct contribution. (Or am i wrong on this?).
What i wonder is whether you agree with this comparison, whether the word Open Source has to be interpreted differently when it's not about software, or that it's often just misused.
What's the most progressive example of a non-software open source something?
I just felt like asking you that, but we can talk this over on any given wednesday. (-: Reply to this
Openness of sourcecode in my opinion is not a requirement for contribution or alteration. It all depends on _who_ you want to involve in the creation process. It's about where walls are located and what they are made of.
Working under the assumption that inhouse developers are smarter/faster/etc. than developers outside the corporate walls is a dangerous assumption when there is not very good focus on whàt exactly to create.
In your example of the supermarket: what exactly is the source? Is the goods you can buy? The way the shop is organized? The brand? The service? The best thing I can think of is that an Open Source supermarket would allow you to sell your stuff in some corner of the shop and share some generic resources such as housing, power, point of sale, etc.
Open Source, for me, has to do with creational processes. In my opinion shops just sell stuff, they don't create.
With regard to brainstorming: this is about mentioning ideas, not about realizing them. Contributing to Open Source is actually helping to create something.
In case of an Open Source song, you don't just say: thanks for sharing all your master tapes and tablatures and lyrics and everything, and maybe you like this or that idea... You actually add something special (a beat, a solo, lyrics, ...) to one or all of these ingredients, you take part in the creation of the song.
This is also where the opportunity to fork (T-splitsing) comes in: you can change the song so drastically that you may want to say: I created a song based on song A, but I will now call it song B and you can all have my masters etc. as well. This is why choosing licenses (copyright / creative commons) is something to think about.
A great example of a non-software OS approach is this: http://www.theoscarproject.org/ You may like it, since I know you are looking for a cheap car that can do just about everything that Cox can think of .
Cheers,
- OD
P.S. this Wikipedia article is related to something you mentioned before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
.
