On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They are restrictive data silos for a reason - they contain proprietary data > and code.
This is a tautology. > They contain proprietary data and code for a reason - it was > easier and cheaper to build them that way. Do you have the research to show that it is cheaper to build "proprietary" (which is the incorrect term by the way, "closed" or "licenced" would be better) data silos? I am willing to bet that in many cases it would either have no effect on the bottom line (how would the BBC loose money by sharing some data?) or would actually improve customer relations and hence, ultimately, revenue. I am willing to be that you can find no research that suggests a closed data silo such as the one the BBC has and is not sharing would harm revenue if shared with the public. I am also willing to bet that there is direct evidence on the contrary. Google's open source software, the New York Times open source software, LiveJournal's open source software, heck even the beeb contributes IIRC. In all of these cases it fosters a community of developers and good spirit around the organisation - not plummeting revenue figures as you suggest. > Given that these systems aren't going to be released in their entirety (at > least not in the near future, it would appear), then I think we're in the > pretty good situation (given the above constraints) of having a marketplace > of different APIs to play with. It's better than nothing, but that's no reason to be complacent and say "oh well, it'll do" because then nothing will happen. You need to speak out if you want things to change. -- Noah Slater <http://www.bytesexual.org/> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
