content/editorial/ec9Mar.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>

 <h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Open Views</font></h2>

 <P><a href="//lspintro.html" target="_blank">-Louis Su&aacute;rez-Potts</a></P>
 <p>8 March 2001</p>
 <P><b>Creating the New Open Source</b></P>
 <P>Calling these articles &quot;Editor&#146;s Column,&quot; has been, I realize,
   a mistake. My suspicion is that by using the word &quot;Editor,&quot; I have
   left the unfortunate impression that these are editorials. They are not. As
   I stated <a href="ec1Feb.html" target="_blank">earlier</a>,
   my intention in these columns is to provide the community with news, views,
   and positions it might find of interest. An obvious function, too, is to give
   newbies a sense both of Open Source, its issues, and of OpenOffice.org, and
   its work.</P>

 <P>So, I&#146;ll rename it, to Open Views. My focus, however, will not substantially
   change. I will still examine the logic and practice of Open Source and OpenOffice.org.
 </P>

 <P>Last <a href="ec1Mar.html">week</a>, I presented
   an interview with Sander Vesik, who, along with Armin Theissen, is a release
   engineer for OpenOffice.org. I asked him what I thought was a rather simple
   question, &quot;It's difficult sometimes for those not familiar with the workings
   of an open-source project to understand just how positions are established and
   defined&#133;.&quot; I expected as an answer something that would describe for
   those who are curious indications as to how an Open Source project is arranged
   and how power is distributed. But Sander responded&#150;and for this I thank
   him!&#150;in a way that went straight to the heart of any Open Source project
   and certainly to the heart of ours:</P>
 <DIR>
 <DIR>

 <P>&quot;OpenOffice.org isn't really an open-source project, and definitely not from the developer base point of view, having only one non-Sun committer. Well, this doesn't sound nice when taken on the face value. Yes, the code definitely is free, but the developer community and structures associated with that just haven't developed yet.&quot; </P>
 </DIR>
 </DIR>

 <P>Sander went on to add that, &quot;There are a great number of shades of gray
   between &quot;totally Open Source&quot; and &quot;closed source.&quot; [&#133;]
   [Whether] a project is open or not doesn't depend so much on the license but
   how the whole project works. The license is only a small part of that, and not
   always the most important.&quot; The license, though important, is just a start.
   What counts, in the end, is the whole structure of the project. In this view,
   OpenOffice.org is thus not an open-source project, despite its license, because
   its community does not yet include very many outside contributors. </P>

 <P>I actually disagree with Sander, though I can see why he should make his claim.
   And I believe that OpenOffice.org will progressively include more developers.
   But there is implicit in Sander&#146;s argument the notion that there is a true&#150;or
   &quot;totally Open Source&quot;&#150;project, and I wonder. I wonder if Open
   Source has in fact undergone, or is undergoing, a revolution of sorts. And that
   we should no longer only look, say, to <a href="http://www.linux.org" target="_blank">Linux</a>
   or <a href="http://www.apache.org" target="_blank">Apache</a>, for <a href="http://www.opensource.org" target="_blank">definitions</a>
   of what Open Source is or means. </P>

 <P>Open Source, as a method and practice is changing or has changed because it
   has become commercially reasonable&#150;smart, even!&#150;for companies to release
   formerly proprietary code under an Open Source license and get people all over
   the world with no allegiance to and under no contract with to the sponsoring
   company to work on the project, often for free. This is a significant change;
   Open Source as such will become more a logical business strategy and method
   in which businesses seek the attention and interests of globally distributed
   developers than a cowboy culture in which hobbyists develop really neat hacks.
   Oh, that will stay; hacking for the sake of it and for the informal communities
   it builds will never go away. But Open Source as such is fast becoming a big
   business and, as they say, the paradigm has shifted.</P>

 <P>Of course, as Sander implied, you can&#146;t just hang out a sign that the
   code is now free and expect the thing to work. (<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010306/tc/opening_proprietary_code_doesn_t_come_easy_for_hp_1.html" target="_blank">Witness
   the telling problems facing HP right now.</a>) You have to somehow establish
   a community to work on the code. I would add: and you need to create a political
   and technological infrastructure that allows the community to grow. For unlike
   Linux and Apache, which were never sponsored by corporations, OpenOffice.org
   must establish&#150;and it is&#150;an identity and structure that allows it
   easily to bring in new members. I think we are getting there.</P>
 <P>&nbsp;</P>
 <h4>Previous articles</h4>
 <p>1 March 2001 <i><a href="ec1Mar.html" target="_blank">Interview:
   Sander Vesik</a></i></p>
 <p>22 February 2001 <i><a href="MSFTArticle.html">Allchin's
   Demagoguery, by Bill Roth, guest contributor</a></i></p>
 <p>15 February 2001 <a href="ec15Feb.html"><i>Interview
   with Wilfredo S&aacute;nchez</i></a></p>
 <p>9 February 2001 <a href="ec8Feb.html" target="_blank"><i>Organizing
   Open Source</i></a></p>
 <p>1 February 2001 <i><a href="ec1Feb.html" target="_blank">Open
   Source and Its Culture</a></i></p>
 <p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html" target="_blank">Community
   Action</a></i></p>
 <p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html" target="_blank">Quo
   Vadis OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
 <p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html" target="_blank">The
   613 build:&nbsp; problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
 <p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html" target="_blank">Sun's
   open door</a></i></p>
 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>

	<h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Open Views</font></h2>

	<P><a href="//lspintro.html" target="_blank">-Louis Suárez-Potts</a></P>
	<p>8 March 2001</p>
	<P><b>Creating the New Open Source</b></P>
	<P>Calling these articles "Editors Column," has been, I realize,
	a mistake. My suspicion is that by using the word "Editor," I have
	left the unfortunate impression that these are editorials. They are not. As
	I stated <a href="ec1Feb.html" target="_blank">earlier</a>,
	my intention in these columns is to provide the community with news, views,
	and positions it might find of interest. An obvious function, too, is to give
	newbies a sense both of Open Source, its issues, and of OpenOffice.org, and
	its work.</P>

	<P>So, Ill rename it, to Open Views. My focus, however, will not substantially
	change. I will still examine the logic and practice of Open Source and OpenOffice.org.
	</P>

	<P>Last <a href="ec1Mar.html">week</a>, I presented
	an interview with Sander Vesik, who, along with Armin Theissen, is a release
	engineer for OpenOffice.org. I asked him what I thought was a rather simple
	question, "It's difficult sometimes for those not familiar with the workings
	of an open-source project to understand just how positions are established and
	defined." I expected as an answer something that would describe for
	those who are curious indications as to how an Open Source project is arranged
	and how power is distributed. But Sander respondedand for this I thank
	him!in a way that went straight to the heart of any Open Source project
	and certainly to the heart of ours:</P>
	<DIR>
	<DIR>

	<P>"OpenOffice.org isn't really an open-source project, and definitely not from the developer base point of view, having only one non-Sun committer. Well, this doesn't sound nice when taken on the face value. Yes, the code definitely is free, but the developer community and structures associated with that just haven't developed yet." </P>
	</DIR>
	</DIR>

	<P>Sander went on to add that, "There are a great number of shades of gray
	between "totally Open Source" and "closed source." []
	[Whether] a project is open or not doesn't depend so much on the license but
	how the whole project works. The license is only a small part of that, and not
	always the most important." The license, though important, is just a start.
	What counts, in the end, is the whole structure of the project. In this view,
	OpenOffice.org is thus not an open-source project, despite its license, because
	its community does not yet include very many outside contributors. </P>

	<P>I actually disagree with Sander, though I can see why he should make his claim.
	And I believe that OpenOffice.org will progressively include more developers.
	But there is implicit in Sanders argument the notion that there is a trueor
	"totally Open Source"project, and I wonder. I wonder if Open
	Source has in fact undergone, or is undergoing, a revolution of sorts. And that
	we should no longer only look, say, to <a href="http://www.linux.org" target="_blank">Linux</a>
	or <a href="http://www.apache.org" target="_blank">Apache</a>, for <a href="http://www.opensource.org" target="_blank">definitions</a>
	of what Open Source is or means. </P>

	<P>Open Source, as a method and practice is changing or has changed because it
	has become commercially reasonablesmart, even!for companies to release
	formerly proprietary code under an Open Source license and get people all over
	the world with no allegiance to and under no contract with to the sponsoring
	company to work on the project, often for free. This is a significant change;
	Open Source as such will become more a logical business strategy and method
	in which businesses seek the attention and interests of globally distributed
	developers than a cowboy culture in which hobbyists develop really neat hacks.
	Oh, that will stay; hacking for the sake of it and for the informal communities
	it builds will never go away. But Open Source as such is fast becoming a big
	business and, as they say, the paradigm has shifted.</P>

	<P>Of course, as Sander implied, you cant just hang out a sign that the
	code is now free and expect the thing to work. (<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010306/tc/opening_proprietary_code_doesn_t_come_easy_for_hp_1.html" target="_blank">Witness
	the telling problems facing HP right now.</a>) You have to somehow establish
	a community to work on the code. I would add: and you need to create a political
	and technological infrastructure that allows the community to grow. For unlike
	Linux and Apache, which were never sponsored by corporations, OpenOffice.org
	must establishand it isan identity and structure that allows it
	easily to bring in new members. I think we are getting there.</P>
	<P> </P>
	<h4>Previous articles</h4>
	<p>1 March 2001 <i><a href="ec1Mar.html" target="_blank">Interview:
	Sander Vesik</a></i></p>
	<p>22 February 2001 <i><a href="MSFTArticle.html">Allchin's
	Demagoguery, by Bill Roth, guest contributor</a></i></p>
	<p>15 February 2001 <a href="ec15Feb.html"><i>Interview
	with Wilfredo Sánchez</i></a></p>
	<p>9 February 2001 <a href="ec8Feb.html" target="_blank"><i>Organizing
	Open Source</i></a></p>
	<p>1 February 2001 <i><a href="ec1Feb.html" target="_blank">Open
	Source and Its Culture</a></i></p>
	<p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html" target="_blank">Community
	Action</a></i></p>
	<p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html" target="_blank">Quo
	Vadis OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
	<p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html" target="_blank">The
	613 build:  problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
	<p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html" target="_blank">Sun's
	open door</a></i></p>
	</body>
	</html>