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.