Should the OHS Be Open Source?

OHS Working Group <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>


Why should OHS be open source?    (1357)

References: jernst@r-objects.com (Feb 18, 2002)

Common justifications for open source    (1371)

Less bugs, more secure    (1377)

Constant peer review. Also, programmers pay more attention to code they know other people will read.

No guarantees of this    (1461)

Potential for innovation    (1384)

No licensing fee    (1391)

Most interested customers are most likely resource-constrained    (1526)

Change the price for schools, countries    (1414)

Never goes "out of business"    (1397)

Do any of these apply especially to OHS?    (1402)

Business reasons aren't primary factors re: OHS    (1484)

Good for learning    (1470)

Learn by studying source code.
References: jackpark@thinkalong.com (Feb 18, 2002)

Facilitate evolution    (1425)

References: sechrest@peak.org (Feb 18, 2002), meilin@ix.netcom.com (Feb 18, 2002)

Can't have facilitated evolution with closed source    (1435)

Forking is a good thing!    (1536)

OHS requires universality    (1500)

References: leei@ece.ubc.ca (Feb 18, 2002)

Increases chances for adoption    (1508)

Can't evaluate software unless you have a chance to use it    (1517)

Not every aspect of OHS needs to be open source    (1552)

References: meilin@ix.netcom.com (Feb 18, 2002)

Strategy for developing OHS?    (1559)

Open source not the right approach    (1565)

References: eric.armstrong@sun.com (Feb 19, 2002)

Can't find the resources to build open source prototype    (1572)

Profit motive enables sustenance    (1582)

Viral licenses are bad    (1588)

Contest is one way to encourage building an open source prototype    (1596)