I just read an interesting article with the title We’re in a brave, new post open source world. The article goes into the evolution of Open Source movement and the numerous licensing policies. On particularly notable phrase I saw read as follows:
…if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them.
What this means is that, if a developer uses a snippet of code taken from StackOverflow, and fail to add such an attribution, then technically the project might be in breach of StackOverflow license. I am curious how many organisations actually check this.
The whole article is a good read.
Original Article: We’re in a brave, new post open source world — Medium
I just read a nice essay by Richard Stallman with the title Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation. A chosen quote from this essay poses perfectly the problem
Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.
Most people probably aren’t even aware of this difference. I never understood why and how the term open source came to be applied to hardware, government and many other areas when in fact even the English language doesn’t see any notion of source in such contexts.
The article I refer to is concerned about correct definitions, I want to look at some of the misunderstandings.
There is an angle to this discussion, a lot of people and organisations look to Open Source Software (OSS) in search for cheap (but not cheerful) opportunities to solve their problems. You can’t blame them for it, but this can raise several issues. I will ignore any moral aspects for now, and focus on a few practical implications.
- Some individuals or organisations release their work as Open Source with the explicit intention to invite others to contribute to it. This is often an acknowledgement that one’s work can be bettered and perfected if others would gain access and be allowed to contribute.
- By releasing a work as open source, there is no implicit or explicit guarantee of quality or defect. It just means use it at your own risks, your contribution would be appreciated if only in terms of signalling any defects found, or improvements that you might have been able to add to it.
- FOSS doesn’t opposed nor condone gainful use. Statistically however, there exist far fewer people and organisations able to contribute than those who actually use OSS. This is well understood and accepted by most. However, it is astonishing to see some people throwing a tantrum and launching on diatribes when they get frustrated by some open source software. This is just plain crazy behaviour, they not only miss the point and are showing preposterous entitlement that deserves to be frowned at.
- Increasingly, many organisations are using OSS as a mean for attracting and retaining talent. This is an instance that stretches the notions of free and open in an interesting way, a subtle form of free promotion and marketing.
Article: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation
I saw this tweet on my timeline.
I really wanted to read it but I only had 15 minutes for it. So I bookmarked it and tried to skip past, but curiosity got the better of me. I followed the link, scrolled all the way to the bottom and spotted this bit:
Way too long; didn’t read
That was a heading of the super short summary. So I read that part, and it was insightful. If and when I managed to find time again, I might read the whole thing. But for today, that section of the article makes up my recommended reading.
Source: How Zano Raised Millions on Kickstarter and Left Most Backers with Nothing — Medium
A chosen excerpt from the highly educative article about BitCoin.
Bitcoin has entered exceptionally dangerous waters. Previous crises, like the bankruptcy of Mt Gox, were all to do with the services and companies that sprung up around the ecosystem. But this one is different: it is a crisis of the core system, the block chain itself. More fundamentally, it is a crisis that reflects deep philosophical differences in how people view the world: either as one that should be ruled by a “consensus of experts”, or through ordinary people picking whatever policies make sense to t
Source: The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment — Medium
The fundamental question raised by the article’s author, is quite relevant in many other contexts than BitCoin. It is well worth reflecting on.
Given that the majority of security annoyances stem from antiquated design considerations, considering the progress made in computing, affordable computing power, this is probably how Operating Systems should now be built and delivered.
Qubes is a security-oriented, open-source operating system for personal computers.
Source: Qubes OS Project