Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software

[Jan Kroken <jankr@nntp.ifi.uio.no>]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> Jan Kroken wrote:
> > Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> > 
> >> If you want to write open source software in the free time it must be
> >> for either of two reasons:
> >> 
> >>    1) You are making the software for yourself, but don't mind sharing
> >>       it with others.
> >>
> >>    2) You are making the software with an intent to one day perhaps be
> >>       able to make a professional version you can sell with a support
> >>       license.
> > 
> > Is it ok if I use this as an example of the dangers of strong typing? :)
> 
> If you explain what you mean first :-)

Sorry about the delayed answer.

I just saw the similarity between organizing information in a uniform
group (a type) in strongly typed languages like Ada, and normalizing
reasons for doing open source development in a distinct and discrete
group that would fit well in an Ada type. The danger I'm talking about
is that of viewing normalized information as a lossless or at least
basically correct representation of chaotic information. The phrase I
reacted the most on was "must be for either of two reasons".

When it comes to motivation for developing open source software, there
is a thorough study available at

http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/Final4.htm

I'm unsure to what degree it is representable, since it was voluntary
and distributed through the community by the developers themself. It
also of course suffers from the normalization of the answers (and
probably the questions too). In addition, when the people themself
describe their motivation, the answer is probably going to be
distorted by pride, self-glorification and other human weaknesses.

-- 
Jan Kroken