Open Development: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Open Source Software]] is defined not just by the type of licenses, but also by a certain kind of development and governance that is open to the community of developers. | [[Open Source Software]] is defined not just by the type of licenses, but also by a certain kind of development and governance that is open to the community of developers. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 25: | ||
The OSI (or its spinoff, or whatever) would assert whether a community deserves the status of “open development”, much like today the OSI is approving licenses. The process could be standardised by providing “open development processes” in terms of bylaws and charters which could then be just applied via find/replace much like what happens today with licenses. The specific authorization to use the “brand” should be temporary and subject to arbitration if someone complains about a community not respecting the self-inflicted rules." | The OSI (or its spinoff, or whatever) would assert whether a community deserves the status of “open development”, much like today the OSI is approving licenses. The process could be standardised by providing “open development processes” in terms of bylaws and charters which could then be just applied via find/replace much like what happens today with licenses. The specific authorization to use the “brand” should be temporary and subject to arbitration if someone complains about a community not respecting the self-inflicted rules." | ||
(http://feather.planetapache.org/2006/03/08/should-osi-redefine-the-label-open-source/) | (http://feather.planetapache.org/2006/03/08/should-osi-redefine-the-label-open-source/) | ||
=More Information= | |||
[[Open Source Software]] | |||
[[Category:Encyclopedia]] | |||
[[Category:Governance]] | |||
[[Category:Business]] | |||
Revision as of 06:46, 16 September 2007
Open Source Software is defined not just by the type of licenses, but also by a certain kind of development and governance that is open to the community of developers.
Here is a proposal in that sense, from http://feather.planetapache.org/2006/03/08/should-osi-redefine-the-label-open-source/
Description
Gianugo [1]:
"I would rather see the OSI, or an entirely new entity, patronise this concept, which should be fairly easy (though not trivial) to protect as there might be some objective criteria to tell open development from plain Open Source. A first stab at what these criteria could be:
1. an Open Source license, of course;
2. a non-discriminatory access to the developer’s community;
3. a well-defined and stated process for people to get involved;
4. a neutral and self-elected governing body;
5. (more difficult, could mean having a preferential lane) a neutral party such as a foundation owning the code.
The OSI (or its spinoff, or whatever) would assert whether a community deserves the status of “open development”, much like today the OSI is approving licenses. The process could be standardised by providing “open development processes” in terms of bylaws and charters which could then be just applied via find/replace much like what happens today with licenses. The specific authorization to use the “brand” should be temporary and subject to arbitration if someone complains about a community not respecting the self-inflicted rules." (http://feather.planetapache.org/2006/03/08/should-osi-redefine-the-label-open-source/)