3 ms·

You can hire private corporations and even pay large sums of money (like 1/100th of this is a very big sum) with a proviso that all the code be published under

by harry8 12y ago

You can hire private corporations and even pay large sums of money (like 1/100th of this is a very big sum) with a proviso that all the code be published under some Free license. This is not advocating self-organizing cat herding with multiple entities donating developer time. Hire bigco, publish what they give you so the neighbours can also use it and you're not stuck with bigco for support. ie you can also fire bigco if they suck once you hired them.

jrapdx3 12y ago
An interesting idea, a kind of gradually-open model of participation. Could work if the source or (selected part of it) is incrementally released from time to time, so at least there's opportunity for open participation if in a more structured manner. Ultimately, the entire source is made available, but by then it works according to specs and has been constructed sanely. Maybe my interpretation of your idea wouldn't work exactly as you has in mind, but I see your point, that maintaining greater control of the development process would likely lead to a more coherent and predictable product that functions in accordance with carefully designed specs. Among flies in the ointment is the necessity for such a highly principled and skilled steering group to manage the effort with the requisite wisdom around scheduling releases and titrating the level of community involvement. The level of talent it implies is likely in short supply. That said, an admiral proposal, distinctly possible, even revolutionary. To quote Spinoza, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare".
- harry8 12y ago
  No. I'm not being clear. Hire eg IBM global services to build you the solution. In the contract it states clearly, part of the deliverable is the source code that will be published under xyz license. Whether you hire IBM, Oracle, Accenture etc or do something a lot less moronic you insist on source and insist on being assigned the copyright to it and you publish it. Every time. Always. That's the step forward I am suggesting. Not the linux kernel model of development. If such a thing arose for particular projects, great. But it's not a requirement nor the goal.

by harry8 12y ago

jrapdx3 12y ago

An interesting idea, a kind of gradually-open model of participation. Could work if the source or (selected part of it) is incrementally released from time to time, so at least there's opportunity for open participation if in a more structured manner. Ultimately, the entire source is made available, but by then it works according to specs and has been constructed sanely. Maybe my interpretation of your idea wouldn't work exactly as you has in mind, but I see your point, that maintaining greater control of the development process would likely lead to a more coherent and predictable product that functions in accordance with carefully designed specs. Among flies in the ointment is the necessity for such a highly principled and skilled steering group to manage the effort with the requisite wisdom around scheduling releases and titrating the level of community involvement. The level of talent it implies is likely in short supply. That said, an admiral proposal, distinctly possible, even revolutionary. To quote Spinoza, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare".

harry8 12y ago
No. I'm not being clear. Hire eg IBM global services to build you the solution. In the contract it states clearly, part of the deliverable is the source code that will be published under xyz license. Whether you hire IBM, Oracle, Accenture etc or do something a lot less moronic you insist on source and insist on being assigned the copyright to it and you publish it. Every time. Always. That's the step forward I am suggesting. Not the linux kernel model of development. If such a thing arose for particular projects, great. But it's not a requirement nor the goal.