The cathedral vs. the bazaar model refers to computer software as a commodity that can either be marketed by a monopoly or sold through the free enterprise system. The free music analogy treats the development of computer software as a creative art form that can either be protected by copyright and marketed for profit or freely shared with all lovers of art. I'm not so sure that this issue can be treated in such a black and white manner. I think that the type of software and its intended audience may need to determine how it is distributed. Just as we all have a right to legal representation and quality health care, so do we have a right to a good education. For this reason, I can see educational software being treated differently from entertainment software. Whereas the developer of a video game has the ability to market his product and know that consumers will purchase it because they like the game, the developer of educational software has to understand that the needs of individuals vary so drastically that one program could not possibly meet the needs of everybody who uses it. It is here where open source could be most beneficial to everyone. School districts purchase textbooks knowing that each teacher that uses a particular textbook will probably need to adapt it to meet different needs. So it should be with software. Software should be viewed as another tool used by teachers to educate and as such needs to be open for adaptation.
I believe the entire concept of open source gives us educators the opportunity to do what we do best. Teachers are well known for their willingness to share ideas and experiences with others who in turn adapt those ideas to meet their own needs. The entire field of education is based on continually improving and trying to perfect ideas over time. It's interesting to walk through a school building year after year and see how wonderful ideas spread and improve from teacher to teacher and grade level to grade level. After a time, those same ideas go from building to building and district to district. It's the nature of the beast. Teachers simply share what they know with others. In the past, when someone has commented on a creative project or practice of mine, I've had to admit that I'm not all that creative. I'm simply good at taking someone else's idea and adapting it to make it mine. I believe that all good teachers are like that.
The whole idea of open source gives teachers the opportunity to do with technology what they are already doing with everything else. Educational software is expensive and often very limited in what it does. No matter what the program, there are always things that can be improved or adapted. Who knows better than a teacher what is needed in a classroom? I get very resentful of legislators who mandate all kinds of things that must and must not be done in a classroom. When these people live "in the trenches" for a while, then they will be qualified to tell teachers what is and is not needed.
The same principal applies to software development. Often software is created by "computer geeks" who don't have a clue what a student will do with (or to) their product, but they are good at coming up with a marketable product. If teachers are able to learn how to modify open source educational software, they can then adapt the software to meet their needs and overcome any deficiencies that may turn up through classroom use of the product. It would simply be good teachers doing what they always do for the benefit of all involved.
Back to my Portfolio