Here are links to my WebBoard commentary and the actual text follows as well.
 

 http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?21882,1234

     Thank you Paul. I am still trying to make my way through this topic and your thoughts have helped reduce my confusion.
    Before taking too much stock in my comments, keep in mind that I haven’t yet finished the suggested readings on “Open Source” and I am not claiming to have fully grasped the concept. However, I have some initial reactions.
    Being a computer neophyte, relatively speaking, I still need clarification on a key point. I understand the philosophy of an open development process—allowing anyone so inclined to help refine and improve software and the unlimited and unrestricted access to such. I am unclear just exactly what a “source code” is. Is that the technical language used to write the particular program (i.e. BASIC from a 100 years ago)?
     I think that free access is an interesting proposition but how would that influence an economy somewhat based on technology? Not that I  support the big, bad economic establishment and their proprietary entrepreneurs...but isn't  some of the support for open source merely a rebellion against the status quo? Won't enthusiasm wane if we do away with big brother (Microsoft) and encourage participation by the masses without the incentive of financial return? And wouldn’t that contribute to a certain amount of chaos as competitive ideologies clash. I am all for the betterment of society and more equitable access to technology (and cold milk and warm cookies) for all but I think it is unrealistic to expect a revolution based on the sharing of innovative thinking—maybe in a utopia where knowledge can be bartered and is as valuable as the dollar but not here on Earth.
     Yes, innovative thinking should be nurtured and capitalized on by big business and small. I am not suggesting that we stifle creativity and collaboration. The proliferation of alternative philosophy and approach will provide a competitive atmosphere that can encourage positive change. I just wonder how a company like Linux can survive. Who pays the rent if their product is free and their research team is predominately “out there somewhere.” I can’t make the financial connection between open source and a free market economy. Would the economic emphasis shift to hardware production and why would that be better? And how can an open source product be copyrighted (as mentioned in your commentary)?
      Finally, what about all the money and time invested in the software all of us already have...will that become obsolete along with our one year old hardware?
     I guess I am still very confused!

http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?22043,1234

Dear Paul,
     Wow! You voice a compelling argument while making clear many tenants of Open Source. I commend you on the lucidity of your thoughts and your comprehensive response to my questions. I am most curious to see how all of this plays out. As you point out, the ramifications of the OS movement may influence economic and organizational change unprecedented in recent history. If the positive outcomes you suggest are realized, I will graciously accept an “I told you so...”
     I hadn’t previously considered that OS technology might not replace (but rather supplement) what we think of as conventional options like Windows and MAC OS programs. It certainly makes sense as an alternative for those computer “geeks” inclined to customize their computing experience. Obviously, the potential is limitless as the population in general gains access to and expertise with computers.
     I especially like your discussion about the value of software relating to the ability it provides to "move ideas and route goods and services.” If Open Source can provide the outlet for the free exchange of ideas, the results benefit all of us economically, and (the collective) we end up with a more efficient computing environment, I think  we have nothing to lose supporting the effort.

 http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?22181,1234

Here I go again...it certainly is difficult to feel I am the sole dissenter among the masses.

I have done more reading and enjoyed the ideas expressed by my fellow students. I, too, have learned as much from you as from the "experts." (Does open source eliminate experts???) However, I still have many questions about the philosophy and long term implications of the OS movement.  Please bear in mind that I support the free exchange of ideas and any means by which creativity can be inspired and shared. My apprehensions  with respect to OS are based on questions of practicality and human nature.

It is very exciting to think that an individual can contribute in the creative process-- be it the development of operating system software or the composition of a piece of music. Bottom up creation and distribution models might work because "individual agents in the system...are not constrained by top down rules, i.e., they have freedom" (The Future of Music, Ram Samuldrala). I question the generosity of those creating the original work. It is commonplace for artists to sue one another for stealing simple "rifs" and plagiarism of the written word is a concern which has taken on new meaning with internet access (see postings by Melissa Creech). The notion that music is like a language and that no-one can own it is ludicrous. Yes, language is not a commodity but what an individual does with it certainly is. Doesn't a poet deserve credit for the way he puts those words together? Is it O.K. to change a few punctuation marks and publish Romeo and Juliet as your work? The collaborative process should not give license to taking credit that isn't really yours. I have a problem with unprotected creativity. Paul said anyone can copyright their work. But I would be horrified if I copyrighted something I created and someone else changed it a bit and copyrighted their version.

I also question the economics of Open Source (and the MP3 movement). I understand that a fledging artist may gain a following he or she otherwise wouldn't without the accessibility of MP3s online. I also understand the financial alternatives to album sales (merchandise, live performance, etc.). I seriously doubt that artists (or programmers) will make a living through donations as Samuldrala implies. Ask anyone who has waited tables if their tips alone provide a decent living wage. If at some point, the music (or software or whatever)  only has creative value, not economic, the artistic process will find an alternate outlet that also provides some financial incentive.

It is important to consider the impact of OS on education. If programs utilized by schools do not fit well with need and OS software would allow accommodation, such influence would be most positive. However, if making  modifications requires expertise only had by a few, most educators will still be left out of the creative loop. The cost of software is also an important educational issue. Free software would  allow technology dollars to be spent on other resources.

I can't begin to argue the points Paul makes. His understanding of OS and economics and the cathedral and the bazaar is on a different level than my own. In theory, the ideas of OS are compelling but moving from theory to practice will be the only way to determine feasibility. As noted by Nikolai Bezroukov, "Open Source may sound democratic, but it isn't. Leaders of the best known open source development efforts often explicitly stated that they function as dictators."  Bzroukov also discusses the effects of ego-related infighting that can lead to forking and the eventual demise of a particular project. He states that "the value of the source code availability extends far beyond the simple ability of a particular user to change something...Source availability is an additional form of consumer protection." Bzroukov feels there "needs to be a balance between publicly accessible knowledge and proprietary, for-profit knowledge, and the Open Source movement is lighting the way."  If the result of the OS movement, whether or not is replaces conventional approach, is improved accessibility, usability and adaptability of software, then the efforts will have been worthwhile..

 http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?22256,1234

I would hope that even proprietary companies consult with "real" teachers when creating new programs (but maybe they don't...). I do agree that allowing free access by teachers during the development of
educational software may well improve the final product. I also think that most classroom teachers have more and more asked of them while they are not given additional time in which to complete these tasks. Asking a teacher to use available technology is one thing. Expecting them to contribute to program development at a level beyond their expertise or interest is unrealistic. Those educators so inclined should certainly get involved as much as possible. As Steve mentions, I wonder about the logistics.

 http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?22382,1234

Melissa,
Your comparison makes a lot of sense. I agree that there are similarities between open source development and cooperative learning and common benefits to both. There is also the risk that individuals will want credit for their ideas... just like students working on a group project might want
the teacher to know their contribution to the overall project. Financial rewards or a good grade are barometers of how well we've done.... Finding the balance between acknowledging the individual and the
encouraging the collaborative process is key but difficult.

 http://webboard.webtech.uiuc.edu:8080/read?22476,1234

Excellent analogy...open source and the sharing of lesson plans and the utilization of educational resources from the web. Both are clearly examples of the "bazaar" providing access for free and then allowing
modifications by the individual to fit need. I hadn't thought of open source in that way before.

Back to Becky's Home Page