I totally agree. The term I use is Open Methodology to distinguish it from source, which often connotes code and product (soft, middle or hard- ware). But, as you point out it is the participation, the contribution and the learning from the experience of collaboration that is paramount. Thanks for sharing the quotes, which neatly illustrate the power and benefits of the practice.
I think a small pause for celebration is in order. It is a victory, albeit a small one, but a victory nonetheless. You can also add speculators as a community that profits from patents, sadly humanity as whole derives little benefit.
I see two further areas of damage from patents in software. The first is the lock-in to a single provider for the patented solution, which goes further when additional capability or functionality is built around or on top of that solution. Having bought into the proprietary and patented solution a user is compelled to only employ their additional proprietary solutions especially if integrated with the patented one. All too often the additional capability or functionality is sub par compared to competitive offerings, but the dependency on the proprietary patent prevents that choice.
The second area is covered to a degree in your post, but benefits from repeating. One thing we have learned over the course of the past decades is that there is no such beast as a perfect software solution. There are always bugs, either inherent in the original code, or introduced a later date by patch or human error. Only the patent owner can repair and improve their code, and furthermore is restricted from taking advantage of efficiencies and capabilities produced by other patent holders. Non-patented software, especially software that is open and enjoys the collaborative efforts of meritocratic developers is often in my experience much higher quality that proprietary alternatives.
Authored Comments
I totally agree. The term I use is Open Methodology to distinguish it from source, which often connotes code and product (soft, middle or hard- ware). But, as you point out it is the participation, the contribution and the learning from the experience of collaboration that is paramount. Thanks for sharing the quotes, which neatly illustrate the power and benefits of the practice.
I think a small pause for celebration is in order. It is a victory, albeit a small one, but a victory nonetheless. You can also add speculators as a community that profits from patents, sadly humanity as whole derives little benefit.
I see two further areas of damage from patents in software. The first is the lock-in to a single provider for the patented solution, which goes further when additional capability or functionality is built around or on top of that solution. Having bought into the proprietary and patented solution a user is compelled to only employ their additional proprietary solutions especially if integrated with the patented one. All too often the additional capability or functionality is sub par compared to competitive offerings, but the dependency on the proprietary patent prevents that choice.
The second area is covered to a degree in your post, but benefits from repeating. One thing we have learned over the course of the past decades is that there is no such beast as a perfect software solution. There are always bugs, either inherent in the original code, or introduced a later date by patch or human error. Only the patent owner can repair and improve their code, and furthermore is restricted from taking advantage of efficiencies and capabilities produced by other patent holders. Non-patented software, especially software that is open and enjoys the collaborative efforts of meritocratic developers is often in my experience much higher quality that proprietary alternatives.