David, Those are observations worth considerably more than a nickle. During all my years working with development of information system solutions for and in developing countries, I've also come to realise that the "OS community spirit"as you call it is far more crucial than license rules. I'm normally calling it "true developmental approach", but that's semantics - the key issue is the ability to share freely, to encourage others to develop & excel (and not only to expect them to admire your own excellence), and most importantly to have a societal/developmental perspective on what you do.
I might have mentioned it before on this list, but I've observed significant differences between US and non-US perspectives on OSS: US OSers tend to view it as a more efficient method for systems development and/or an alternative business model. Non-US OSers tend to emphasise the "community spirit" and "development potential" more, and often view it as an extension of a several thousand years old academic tradition of developing and sharing knowledge for the common good. That tradition has been under attack for decades through privatisation and commercialisation of higher education and research institutions + (mainly US) patenting of everything from Bismati rice and peanut-butter sandwiches via "the one-click approach" to human genes. Technology stock market bubbles in the 80's and 90's exacerbated this, with academic staff and students fervently believing that any IDEA might turn them into instant millionaires. (Or that if they freely shared their solutions somebody else would somehow turn it into millions. I've come across several examples of this - the net result was in all cases neither millions nor recognition/development.) The community/developmental perspective also make it easier to explain why governments and big corporations find it so difficult to Open Source their solutions: There are just too many stakeholders, and giving up control / change ingrained patterns of work is thus very difficult unless the LARGE majority of such stakeholders agree - which they seldom do... You find that efforts to Open source things usually get bogged down in internal discussions, and final decisions get postponed and postponed (until the solution is not that relevant any more...) In large organisations (whether private or gov), sticking to established rules and practices in general means job security - sticking your neck out is regarded as risky. VistA is actually a good example of how dedicated OS individuals and "itch scratchers" can mitigate this: it was originally developed as an "underground" movement in Veteran's hospitals under hostile fire from their Pentagon bosses (hospital staff discovered to do programming were fired, "illicit" computer equipment burned in the parking lot, etc). The "underground" then managed to go directly to Congress and get approval to "break free" because Pentagon at the time had poured hundreds of millions down various proprietary holes. VistA would never have been released as Open Source if they had gone through the "correct channels" for approval. Governments' reluctance towards Open Sourcing anything is obviously slowly residing in many countries as its benefits (especially costs) and market penetration becomes clearer. We have seen how resentment against Microsoft expansionism have driven large competitors (Sun, Novell, IBM) towards the Open Source camp. Similarly, many governments view Open Source as a way of breaking global dominance of the market by a few countries. So there's movement, but it is relatively SLOW, and Open Sourcing is in practice still "driven" by dedicated individuals/groups within each country - which are battling with recalcitrant bureaucrats and "IT departments" steeped in the belief their primary job is to exercise CONTROL over information systems and information use. Finally, if the focus is on the "OS community spirit" rather than formal license rules, it inherently leads to the following conclusions: (a) That "Open Source" should not be limited to solutions where ALL components including the underlying OS are released under (L)GPL or similar. For users, hybrid solutions might be as appropriate (remember that only 10-15% of info systems costs are software) - the key determinant must be developmental impact, not religious adherence to the FOSS Qu'ran. (b) The "OS community" could and should comprise "commercial" individuals and entities (as it does today, even if certain OS puritans sneer). In developing countries, for instance, it is of crucial importance that OS opens up for the development of local IS/IT businesses that are NOT just local subsidiaries of global companies. Best regards Calle ********************************************* Calle Hedberg 46D Alma Road, 7700 Rosebank, SOUTH AFRICA Tel/fax (home): +27-21-685-6472; Cell: +27-82-853-5352 ********************************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Australian OpenEHR implementation, was Re: Typed & untyped languages > Perhaps I'll add my nickle's worth here. I have personally come to > believe that an Open Source project is characterized by an openness to > collaborate with others. If one is to work on an OS project alone then > gives it away for free - that makes the person a Santa Claus! I have in > fact learned that there are many who have the good intention to share > their code but few who truly embrace the OS community spirit. I > understand Horst's frustration (and others). The fact that we keep > hearing that a certain OS will some day be released but in the mean > time it's not open for collaboration makes one wonder if it truly is an > OS project at all. > David >
