Open source gives users greater flexibility...

While on proprietary software you get whatever capabilities come with it, on open source source software you can actually customize your software to your needs.

Many proprietary software companies just sell you the software as they deem it should be, so you're pretty much tied to whatever they sell to you at the price they set. Adding or subtracting modules is most often than not out of the question, and since the source code is out of reach making the changes in house is not really an option.

On contrary, with open source is a lot easier to pick and choose the pieces you need. And if there isn't something that suits your needs as is, having access to the source code allows you to build your system in house. Or you could hire outside help if there is the need.

Add to this the availability of open standards that are powerful and reliable, the flexibility for users is much bigger.

Not only that, the systems built this way are truly owned by those who build them. So, they can share them with others as they wish or can sell those changes as long they also share the source code.

Open source helps users by giving them a platform which allows to build ever more powerful and reliable tools. At the end, software is a tool the users have to reach a goal or do something. As such, the easier it is to make tool for a certain job the more the value of the tool.

But, it loses most of its value to the user if the user doesn't have a way to make it work as they need to work.

As such, I oppose any effort to keep users to modify the software they use in any way they need. Not only that, the user that made those changes should be able to give them to the community to study and use.

We should be the true owners of the software, and the data, that our system runs.

Current patent system doesn't promote innovation...

ACTA might have been shoot down, but we are still stuck with a patent law that doesn't help to bring innovation forth.

A system that was set up in order to create an atmosphere that made innovation possible by protecting truly innovative products and ideas, is now used to litigate rivals out of the market.

To add insult to injury, the system is set up so that the one with the deepest pockets is sure to win. The merits of the patents are usually not center stage when someone threatens with a lawsuit, since the merits come into play once you get to the trial. And then, you've to pray that you get a jury savvy enough to understand what is going on.

As usual, the users are the ones that who'll be the biggest losers. Users get fewer choices, and get less innovative products since the ones making the products we buy don't have to work as hard to get our attention.

Small enhancements, or even incremental ones, could be passed as much more. There wouldn't be anything else to compare to, so in many cases the users wouldn't know better.

The system needs to change, if it really wants to promote innovation and growth. If not, innovation will dry up and users will be stuck with whatever established companies wish to offer. A very sad fate, yet it seems that's where we are headed.

The users should be the ones deciding what product to buy and use on an open market, not judges.

ACTA defeated in EU Parliament...

ACTA, the international version of SOPA, has been defeated in the EU Parliament by on overwhelming mayor. The final vote of 478 to 39 against it, making it hard to argue that anyone other than special interests want anything like ACTA.

This is a mayor victory for the users rights, and to against having back door deals like ACTA being forced upon people.

Most importantly, that the EU Parliament voted against it practically unenforceable. Now, most countries will move away from ACTA since people have made one of the most important governments of the word shoot it down on its own backyard.

I hope the message goes out that laws shouldn't protect special interests over the people. As a matter of fact, people should be more protected from the abuses from the special interests.

Patents being used wrong...

It seems that the current patent system has been transformed into a tool that big companies use to curb the competition.

Almost every week now, there is a case of a big company suing or being sued. The worst part is that most patents are on things that shouldn't be able to get a patent to begging with. Like the general design of a certain product, or an algorithm that are needed to run many things because there isn't other ways to do it.

It's worrisome that those patents are granted, and even more worrisome is that judges are upholding them even when the claim or the patent flies against common sense. It seems that you just need to be big or popular to have the system on your side.

Patents should be granted on basis of the technical merit, not just because no patent had been granted on it before.

I just hope more people put pressure on whoever it needs to be put on, so the patent system is reformed.

Building through consensus...

Another of the strengths of FLOSS, is that most projects tend to be managed though consensus.

This is important, because it reaches to those people that will be affected by some change or have the experience required to move the project forward. On most cases, people on both camps is consulted to make the best possible product.

It's important to note that most of the time, the people that build the consensus are those who have qualifications to bring what's needed to the table. Yet, if you have something to say about what's being done, you can weigh in with your opinion or share something that you've made that could benefit the project.

There is a central group, or individual, that makes the final decision. But that decision is made using the input of those who have something to say on how, where, or what should be done.

It's important to keep in mind that not everyone will have their way. But, this makes FLOSS stronger because the projects are make decisions taking into account the voices of those who make up the community of users and developers of that particular project. And yet, there should be someone capable of taking the final decision when the time is right to do so.

There should be a balance, and the great thing is that many FLOSS projects have found it.

Part of a community or just a costumer...

When I see how FLOSS and closed source companies treat the people who use their products or develop for them, the difference couldn't bigger or more striking.

While on closed source projects costumers and developers tend to be seen just as an working relationship, on FLOSS there is a sense of being part of a community that works together as such.

Closed source project are closely guarded to avoid giving away any control of what happens behind the user side. This means that the users don't have any say on what goes on there, and are dependent on whatever the people who run the project choose to do with the software.

On the developer side of business, they are just allowed access to what the project managers believe the developers should have. This means that developers are also tied to whatever to what the project owners want the to do, or how they believe things should work without any outside feedback.

On FLOSS projects, both users and developers can have a say on every aspect of the development process and the direction of where the project should go. It truly becomes a community effort, since everyone that can add something of value to the project can actually do so.

Closed source projects want to retain as much control as possible on as few possible hands, with centralized decision making process. All decisions of where and how changes are made, and where the software is being taken, are made by a the core management.

FLOSS projects are much different. The community around the project has a bigger share on the on how the project is run, and what changes or additions are made. The management is responsible of the final decision, but the community has the chance to give a lot of feedback on what the decision should be or how it should look.

At the end FLOSS is a lot more inclusive of the community of users and developers that builds around the projects built as FLOSS. On the closed source project, the relationship is a lot more rigid. Users and developers are just to consume what the project leaders thing they should.

Personally, I just don't like being forced to use something just because I'm told to do so.

Community effort...

Another of the things I like about FLOSS, is that projects that are made this way become the propriety of those who form the community behind it. It stops being just the propriety of those who kick started the project, or those who manage it.

The efforts to maintain and improve the project, are a lot more democratic. Everyone that has something to say, can make it known to the community at large. If there is an interest to contribute in any way possible, there is a way to do so.

Each project truly becomes a part of those who work on it, and those who work on it become of something bigger. Both the project and the community at large benefit from each other, and everyone gets something in return from working on the project.

Most important, FLOSS gives all the people who interact with any project much more that they put into the project. We get the freedom to choose the way we interact or collaborate with people on the project, and the project. One can commit to any project to any level one feels comfortable at.

One can choose those projects that better fit what we want to do, and what one believes in. And if there isn't one that fits the bill, there is always the chance to start a project that does. There is no need to tie oneself to particular project just because there is no other way, each individual and community can make the way they want to go.

After all, FLOSS is about giving people the freedom to choose what's best for them.

Using FLOSS to reach out to others...

It's sad to see that for many people are more willing to accept increasing military budgets or aggressive moves, than to increase the budgets for education, libraries, or places for the integration of the communities we live in.

There should be more emphasis on things that bring people together to share what they want to, or to learn, exchange ideas, and work together on whatever they want to. By enabling people to come together to work together, or to get to know each other, we create the kind of environment that fosters unity and peace. We start to see others as persons, with all that comes along with that viewpoint.

FLOSS can give us a platform to help the communities to get there, since it gives everyone an equal opportunity to reach out and discover what's out there for them.

In a way, it can be the gateway not only to know others on the same community and what's going on within. It also enables the individual to reach out further away, enabling the creation of an even wider viewpoint and pool of knowledge, knowhow and wisdom to dispose of.

FLOSS can be a great enabler to a wider audience, since the point of access to it is significantly lower. Not only that, it supports most of the modern standards and has all the software that most people will ever need.

There is a need to be building bridges between communities and individuals. We don't need walled gardens, we need things to be open and transparent for everyone that wishes to be part of the community.

It's time to stop with the divisions, and bring forth unity.

Coming together....

One of the things I like the most about Linux, and FLOSS in general, is that it brings people together to work on things that they enjoy and like to do. By doing so, they can share their with others while getting feedback from people who share their passion and enthusiasm for what they are doing.

It tends to bring the best from everyone, and letting people to freely share their work and ideas with each other. The most valuable thing exchange between the people working within these communities is not money, is the knowledge and experience they have earn after hours of working and contributing to the project, or projects, they are working on.

By sharing what they know, and working on common goals, people come together and the feeling of belonging makes these communities to become close and want to help others to make things better.

I'd love nothing more than to see this kind of community at work in more areas of life. The places where we live and work would greatly benefit from people working and exchanging ideas and experience freely with each others. There is a need to create places where people can come together with ease to work on things, or talk about that are important for them or the community they live in.

The importance that most people must have easy access to these forums, or workplaces, can't be understated. If people can easily go to those places, and make full use of the installations, they are worse than useless. It can be a dedicated place, or it can change location according to the needs that the group has. And, the information of where they are, and the hours it's open should be easy to come by as much people as possible.

With modern technology, not everyone has to be at the same physical place on some occasions. Telecommunications have made it easy for people to be able to work as a group, or be part of a group of people that just likes to discuss a certain topic, without to have to be at the same place at the same time. Meetings by individuals within the group could be easily arranged if they need or want to do so.

There needs to be the will to come together, then the first step is to start building such communities.

Flexibility in numbers...

It's interesting to see how FLOSS projects seem to take a life of their own when they are managed correctly, and seem to actually surpass expectations of what can be done with them.

When there is the right people managing any given project, it can not only reach the goals it sets itself. It can actually surpass them quite easily, since people can join in and give to the project any fixes or improvements that are needed with ease.

And since the community around the project can actually have some amount of say about where the project should go, it's everyone feels more valued and more willing to keep working to make the project move forward.

If the management of a project decides it doesn't want to keep working on it, it's easy for another set of people to come in, and either take the project or fork it. Or if a subset of developers feels that the managers aren't taking the project in the right direction, they can fork it and take it where they believe it should go.

This makes FLOSS a lot more flexible, since the managers of FLOSS projects can benefit more directly from feedback from people on the field. And this feedback can come in the form of bug fixes or improvements to the code that might be hard to do by the people working on the project on daily basis.

FLOSS projects can be more flexible because it can have a wider set of people that can contribute directly to it.

FLOSS is generally more friendly to create an environment where on which the community that grows around it can make each project stronger through collaboration of its members. Of course, this level varies from project to project.

Yet, most of them are open to all to help.

Importance of open source and standards...

It's important to realize the importance of open source and standards have to give to both developers and users.

Being able to build on the work already there, helps to be able to the developer to focus on adding value to his work. By doing so, it gives him an important tool to differentiate his app from others out there and bring in revenue.

It seems that many developers nowadays spend their time trying to work bringing the solutions they need to common problems, because they can't use existing solutions already out there because they can afford to pay for the license or there isn't a license at all.

This can be a problem to independent developers, even small companies, since they have to put resources they could be using elsewhere to reinvent the wheel. Putting them at an disadvantage, because it becomes harder for them to give value, or can't differentiate, they product from others.

And not only they lose, the users lose too. Those developers could have ideas, or solutions, much needed by the users. Yet, they can't connect with each other because there isn't a way for them to do so.

On the user side, open standards are much more important. Mainly because open standards allows the user to find the software that better suits his needs, without having to worry if he will be able to continue to be able to access and use the data he already has.

And the developer can focus on giving his users the tools they need, without having to worry if the underpinnings will work.

This way, everybody is set to win.