Overwhelmingly, responses to my last column contained challenges from readers who did not think that language or a dictionary were very adequate comparisons to use in a discussion of open source development and free software. (That article covered the scientific method, open source, and the Oxford English Dictionary.)

But I stand by my metaphor.

If language and communication consisted only of cryptic codes and secret
handshakes, we wouldn't get very far in life. And with more and more of
our world depending on computers and technology, we'll not get very far if
these crucial systems are closed.

Open source development is like a box of chocolates

For those who object that language isn't the best comparison for the open
source development model, I offer another: open source development is
like the law.

Take the United States Constitution, one of my favorite constitutions of
all time. Everyone is taught in school -- but few people recall in day-to-day life -- that the US Constitution was written by a collective of
authors, who pulled all-nighters from May until
September 1787 to hack this document together at the Constitutional
Convention.

It must have cost quite a bit of time and money (for food and lodging and
lost wages, if nothing else) for the founding fathers to have spent that
much time in Philadelphia drafting the document. And it took years of time
and effort before it was ratified. As with the costs associated with
writing open source software, it is hard to know if the real costs were
actually recouped against the bottom line in the end. But the benefits
have been very real, and we have reaped the rewards of their efforts for
more than 200 years. I for one salute their effort, their dedication -- and
their modular design. And regardless of whether the costs were recovered,
I would not want to change the fact that, in the end, we got the US
Constitution.

Strangely enough, I'd have been in the minority with this opinion back
when the deed was done. In the same way that many institutions today don't
grok the benefit of free software, many politicos then failed to see a
benefit in the Constitution. That wasn't because of cost, but because the
individual states were at that point feuding as hotly as software companies do
today. They didn't like the idea of a centralized federal power taking away any
of their liberty or exercising authority over them. Many modern
companies also fear that the power of free software will take away their
"competitive edge."

The law is open source

There are more ways that the legal system reminds me of free software,
though.

The legal code is also constantly evolving. Cases, new legislation,
precedents, and rulings all influence each other, and in the process create new areas of law or tweak,
or rewrite existing ones. In this way, the legal

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine