Thanks Robert for this illuminating article. I will immediately change the way I address open source components with my bosses and colleagues!
From today I will use the term: "Peer Reviewed Software".
As I work in the scientific world, this definition immediately make clear what I mean to my listeners.
Nobody will ever blame a scientific result of being "publicly accessible and inspectable in its entirety to anybody" - being this inspection free or non-free.
Shifting the discussion from a business point of view to a scientific point of view, I hope the focus will shift from cost and commercial support to "reviewers" (community), "citations" (integrations, inclusions, adoption as dependency/component), "references" (fork history).
Peer Reviewed Software. With the optional addition of "publicly", to underline the fact that entire process is fully transparent.
And more: "There's a great business model to be made for supporting open source and many staples in the industry have done just that. WordPress has Automattic, Linux has Red Hat, and Git has GitHub."
Odd one out!
Which one of the three software companies does not open-source its core business code, for which makes customers choose them? (Like facebook, twitter, netflix, and all other open-source prophets).
Can I start a similar service to github (or facebook, or twitter, or netflix) by just install one of your 150 open sourced projects?
I can install WordPress on my server, any linux distribution or Fedora, and... correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot install GitHub.
I understand your business model, it's very reasonable and I could adopt the same approach in some cases, but all I could say as am evangelist, then, is "hey, let's open source some secondary and not-so-important stuff".
Thanks Robert for this illuminating article. I will immediately change the way I address open source components with my bosses and colleagues!
From today I will use the term: "Peer Reviewed Software".
As I work in the scientific world, this definition immediately make clear what I mean to my listeners.
Nobody will ever blame a scientific result of being "publicly accessible and inspectable in its entirety to anybody" - being this inspection free or non-free.
Shifting the discussion from a business point of view to a scientific point of view, I hope the focus will shift from cost and commercial support to "reviewers" (community), "citations" (integrations, inclusions, adoption as dependency/component), "references" (fork history).
Peer Reviewed Software. With the optional addition of "publicly", to underline the fact that entire process is fully transparent.