Openness is a great thing for everyone...

I find it somewhat ironic that some companies have grown using open source software and open standards in private, and yet it come the time to release their product they decry that they don't do it as an open source or standard. Some even decry them as being evil, and that they could mean the end of everything.

They don't seem to understand, or choose to ignore, the fact that making their code open and able to run on open standards they actually strength their position. Mainly because making keeping it that way helps to be able to concentrate their efforts on the areas that add value, and having some of the low priority development done outside the company.

On the open standard side, it gives a larger audience the chance to run the product. Since the standard you build your product to run on is freely available for everyone to implement on their system, it makes it possible for your product to be used by a wider audience since they know it will run on it without a fuss.

And if there is a way you can improve the standard, you can put it in it. This benefits everyone, since it makes the standard better, easier to use, more secure or stable.

These two factors free valuable resources on your company to work on what's really important to be useful to your users, adding value and features that actually useful to them. By doing so, you build loyalty on your users.

This loyalty will result not only them buying your products, but will make them happy to recommend them to others for use.

One unintended, but valuable, consequence is that it builds trust on everyone that work on the project or uses it. By being transparent on how your product works, and what the standards do, means that users can trust you and the code you give them.

Openness is a virtue that pays in the long run, and that all like to have.

Freedom to personalize as we please...

It's sad only companies are pushing laws to make sharing among users a lot more difficult, in some cases illegal.

For the looks of it, the awful truth is that they don't seem to understand that people want to be able to share what they love with others. And they'll always find a way to circumvent any measure, or law, that is on their way to do so.

Not only that, in order to pass such laws users stand to lose control over their own property. Companies who produce and market many of the things we use on daily basis in order to share with others, are willing to severely limit what we can do on with what we buy and how we can do things on them.

They want to have control over they products, even after we bought it. The want to make sure that you use it the way they think it's supposed to be used, and that you can't share it or give it away without them getting some kind of payment. In some cases, they even oppose you selling to someone else after you are done with it.

It seems that they can't stand having outside people making modifications to their product make it more suitable to their needs, or just to see what can be done with it. Not to mention that they really dislike users making a third party market place where they can exchange parts and accessories that aren't officially sanctioned.

That's a part of the ecosystem that grows around the product as it becomes more popular, and more people buy it. They want to make it look, and work, according to their needs and tastes. For many users, myself included, is a big turnoff when they aren't allowed to personalize their things to their hearths content.

Why on earth can't they do so? After all, it should be their choice to do so.

It's in everyone's best interest that companies open up their product lines, and let it be personalized by their users as they choose, and to the level they choose to.

After all, we do pay for them.

Welcome users to tinker with your product...

It's rather sad that companies want to impose their users what they thinks is best, without readily accepting feedback or letting users seeing the underpinnings of what they use.

Locking people out from the underpinnings of the software they use is a bad idea, since when something goes wrong the mistrust generated is great and hard to get rid of. Yet, the benefit of building their software openly with the help of their users and third party developers adds value.

People like to work together, specially on things on which they are passionate about. Time after time people have found a way to tinker with those things that they love, either just to see how they work or to make them work better for their needs. I can't imagine how many great additions to the core of any given project have been lost because the ones who made them couldn't share them with others easily, or where forces not to do so by the company that made the product.

So, open the gates to your users and the benefits will be great. At the end, if not for them your company wouldn't get anywhere.

Technology can be a great unifier and equalizer...

Computers can be one of the best technologies to enable to unify communities around a common goal, and to give all members of a community an equal chance to get their ideas out.

But for this to be fully realized, computers and the software they run should be open to be studied, modified, and distributed freely by anyone who has an interest on doing so. There shouldn't be any barrier that impedes the person who wishes study, or modify, his computer or the software it runs.

Locking people from doing so, endangers our right to really do what we want with our property and data. We should be able to freely modify our computers and software to meet our needs and specifications, and to know that our data is safe from third parties who seek to have it without our knowledge or permission.

No single entity should be the only one with lock and key to the internals of the software and hardware we use, and rely on, to communicate and use to conduct our daily lives.

The end user should have the right to study the source code, or technical blueprint, and to make any modification that the user believes necessary.

If there should be a condition to do this, is that those modifications should be shared back with where the source code came from. Other than that, there should be no other restriction whatsoever to be able to do so.

At the end, this is the most beneficial practice for the community at large.

Debate among the community...

The debate that occurs among the community on FLOSS is great, and a healthy thing to have. It's a sing that all of those with something to share, or an idea to make any project better, can give put it out there so other can consider the merits it has.

This model is way better than having a centralized group just imposing their ideas on the community, regardless of the merits of what is being imposed to the community or what the community wants or not. Most of the time, the community at large that centralized model can't even have a say on what is being done.

When the community is engaged in every step of the development process, the end product tends to be a lot better and the community at large is more likely giving it all the support needed so the project is a success.

Let's not forget that at the end of the day the community around each project is the one factor that can make or brake any given project. If the community is not heard the most likely result would be failure, regardless of what the predictions say it would happen.

So, a healthy debate with all the members of the community should be kept. This results on having the majority of the community with you, and could also give new ideas to add to the project on the ongoing development process, or on the next development cycle.

Engaging the community is a win-win situation, since the developers get the support they need and the users get the features they want. It is fool-hearted to believe that a project can run in the long run without a strong community on the long run.

An open and transparent debate with all the community is one of the best ways to build support from the community, and have a shoot of having any possibility of building a great product.

So, encourage the community to debate the merits of the project. You'll be surprised on how beneficial the practice can be.

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.