Open Source is a radically different way of thinking about intellectual property and the creative process. It puts authors and users into a dynamic relationship that blurs (if not erases) the line between them. It is one of the world's few practical critiques of capitalism. ...Or is it?
Not to hear Vipul Ved Prakash tell it, as quoted in Technology Review, Oct 2003. Not to pick on Mr. Prakash, though one might have hoped that a prominent Open Source developer might have a grander vision. (And actually, he should probably be commended for his honesty.) Here's what he said:
"Open source gives people an outlet to publish their stuff, get lots of users quickly, and prove their product. Then they have a better chance of getting [venture capitalists] to take a look and invest."He mentions four things, and four things only: distribution, marketing, quality control, and capitalization. By his definition, Open Source sounds like nothing more than the best business strategy yet devised. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! Let me be perfectly clear: I'm posting on this only because of the stark clarity with which Prakash has made this statement — and its contrast with some of the "stick it to the Man" rhetoric of Open Source.)
So where's the truth? As with most claims in technology, probably somewhere between the utopian fantasy and the naked bottom line.
Posted by Jon on May 5, 2004 09:16 AM