Ian Haywood wrote:
I don't doubt that that you mean well, but past experience is that relying on a commerical operator to open-source vital components can be very frustrating. (I'm thinking of Argus messanging service) Argus was eventually open-sourced, but after years of harmful delay, and incompletely so. It is a special category in that the project was initally funded with taxpayer's money. Ian
I am concerned about your perceptions of what went on with Argus in the process of open sourcing, and what the status is now.
The only reason for the delay in open sourcing was the process of evaluating the different open source regimes and the process of reporting back on the different regimes from legal advice. There was no reluctance on the part of the 'commercial providers' and the opposite is quite the fact. We have been the champions of moving Argus to the open domain and had to fight for some time to gain the full possession of the IP to do so. The other delay was the establishment of the legal infrastructure for the ongoing development and support etc. It was important to get this right.
Despite your perceptions of the open source domain, most commentators and observers admit that Argus would not have advanced to meet the demands in the short term the way it has if Argus had just been thrown without consideration into the broad open source domain without first ensuring that there was a coordinated means of supporting it and further developing it.
The open source regime that we came up with was the best that we could determine (and we had the assistance of recognised open source legal expertise and advocacy) to ensure a coordinated approach to adhering to Standards and market demand, but also serve the open source fraternity and sorority.
I would hope that you will recognise that I keep striving to support the open source initiatives and movements, and to this end have been active on the Health OpenWare Foundation to find ways that we can continue to do this. Just branding us as 'commercial operators' does us a disservice and does not recognise the fact that we have probably chosen the most difficult and tenuous path of all; ie support of principles of 'for public good' and openness, along with a recognition that all products need some coordination and direction and also infrastructure to ensure it continuation. Look at Mozilla, Open Office, LINUX etc.
I remain disappointed that we dont get the recognition and support from the community that we are trying to serve. Also we continue to be attacked by those really in the commercial sector as being niaive and traitors to the commercial cause.
Argus may still yet be the best shining example of what can be done with some business acumen combined with a regard for public good and openness. I hope it does; and it wont fail due to my not putting in the best effort that I can at the twilight of my career. The same goes for the rest of the Argus team that should credit for their dedication and holding to a cause that sometimes seems unwinable.
regards Ross Davey _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
