Still there are a lot of problems with open source UI code. Someone
in office opens say OpenWebmap user interface looks familiar but the
user doesn't know that this version has been mangled by someone to
adjust the integration values for some reason. User then does the
whole analysis and gets bogus results the user blames space syntax
not the intermediate programmer.
I mention this because when I left UCL I left the source code to
Axman/Space box ( it wasn't my source it was UCL's after all they
had sold it to Syntax Ltd at the Time ). The researcher in question
was doing some research and wanted to add a new feature to expresso
and did so. He then altered the save code so it didn't sort its self
when it saved ( he wanted to keep the order identical in a number of
cases for his experiment). What he didn't know was that disabling the
sort ment the map was being mangled when it was saved. Basically
saving and axial map in this new version resulted in the map being
mangled (unreadable) for ever. This would have been his own personal
tragedy except he put his version on the shared server. When you
double click on a document and have multiple copies of the same
application ( two copies of Word for example ) you end up getting
random selection of which application is run (effectively). Slowly
but surely old versions of Axman documents became corrupted.
The second occurance was that someone change the icon to axman
version 1.75 and declared it to be 'axman 3.0' I was sending out
axman 1.85 to people who then practically went back a version
(loosing a number of bug fixes on the way) to use the
"newer" (actually older) version 3.0. My own fault for doing free
maintenance off my own back when people emailed with problems.
With open source this might be worse
any suggestions?
On 25 Jun 2007, at 11:35, Alasdair Turner wrote:
> Cutting across the argument somewhat, the first popular web browser
> was
> publically funded: the (US) National Center for Supercomputing
> Applications' Mosaic browser.
>
> Both Netscape Navigator and Microsoft's Internet Explorer were
> based on
> Mosaic's source code. Mosaic was not truly open source, and had
> various
> restrictions on commercial use and redistribution of modified source
> code, although the browser itself was free to download, and the source
> code easy to get hold of. This to me seems eerily similar to
> Syntax2D's
> licence. As appears usual with major pieces of software (and this
> is an
> interesting discussion in itself), Mosaic was written originally by
> just
> a few people, going on to be supported by many more, before being
> taken
> over by major corporations with much larger support teams. However,
> Mosaic also wasn't the first browser, although it was, I believe, the
> first to show images inline in the page (this is certainly what
> Wikipedia says).
>
> When we say one community or another couldn't come up with X or Y, we
> have to remember the incremental way ideas are built. Just as with
> science various people come up with greater or smaller advances. It is
> interesting that some of the greater advances in software appear to be
> publically funded, e.g. Google and Mosaic.
>
> There are also interesting twists in the way software has evolved:
> Unix
> (also from a minimal team) was commercially created, but the source
> code
> was licensed out to academia. So far we've seen mention of
> "protection", but there should of course be mention of "trust".
> Organisations (whether public or commercial) need to work out
> methods to
> share code fairly between them, based on trust. This is where the
> core
> of the problem lies. I sympathise with Lucas: I would be upset to see
> my own contribution used by industry for their sole profit, but I
> don't
> believe the solution is protectionism. The key in the sentence to
> me is
> "sole profit". Mutual profit can take on many guises, and
> sometimes, as
> demonstrated by Unix, that involves giving someone something for
> free to
> strengthen a relationship between you. At other times, as with
> Mosaic,
> the innovators need financial compensation when a large corporation
> builds on their work.
>
> Alasdair
>
> Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
>> I did not say locking ideas or make them innacessible. I have got it
>> totally wrong. I have said *protecting* ideas. This means the
>> agent of
>> innovation must be rewarded somehow.
>>
>> If you do not believe in this you should start to publish 'anonymous'
>> papers :)
>>
>> If you have participated once in your life in any open source project
>> you would know that scattered islands of good ideas not
>> integrated at
>> all is the main characteristic of this type of software development.
>> Once the project is made public, lots of 'clones' appear reflecting
>> different groups or ideas.
>>
>> You do not need to write software to participate in a project like
>> that, you can help writing documentation or translating to your
>> language, etc. What are you waiting? By the way most of these
>> projects
>> accept contributions? Is the company you work for willing to pay a
>> programmer for Syntax2D?
>>
>> All the list of software you made are copycat. Including firefox (my
>> favourite). Tabs were created by Opera, not firefox. If you have used
>> the new Microsoft Office user iterface, a real innovation, you would
>> understand that open source would NEVER create something like that?
>> Why? because good people is paid for ... even if one talented guy
>> start in open source, sooner or later he will move on...
>>
>> Any e-mails from whom write software or participate in a open source
>> project?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>
>> On 22/06/07, Kerstin Sailer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the problem with open source - it does not reward
>>>> innovation.
>>>> Most of innovation is driven by individuals protecting briliant
>>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> and where is your evidence, Lucas? ;-)
>>>
>>> I could equally propose that I believe innovation is often
>>> hindered by
>>> locking away good ideas and making them inaccessible for others,
>>> thus
>>> resulting in many scattered islands of good ideas and good software
>>> solutions that are not integrated and people are not learning
>>> from each
>>> other. We call this competition and there are areas (especially
>>> those
>>> that may not generate millions of pounds instantly) where
>>> collaboration
>>> and openness would lead much further.
>>>
>>> Just look at the development of everyday software. Nowadays I
>>> don't need
>>> to pay Microsoft or Adobe if I want to write a document (use Open
>>> Office), do graphical work (use Gimp), browse the Internet (Firefox)
>>> etc. You may argue that these are just copies of the original,
>>> but you
>>> will also find that they introduced very useful features (e.g.
>>> tabs for
>>> internet browsing), that then Microsoft copied again from Firefox.
>>> This is also innovation, namely improvement and progress in the
>>> name of
>>> the user.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kerstin
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the other way, open source is made by scattered communities
>>>> trying
>>>> to copy existing features of commercial software. The exception is
>>>> large companies adopting open source to save development costs
>>>> and try
>>>> to create market for a particular technology.
>>>>
>>>> I think Syntax2D is an important but very small step towards a real
>>>> collaborative work in space syntax software. I will look
>>>> carefully to
>>>> the software and see if I can contribute.
>>>>
>>>> I wish the best luck!
>>>>
>>>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>>> Mindwalk
>>>> http://www.mindwalk.com.br
>>>>
>>>> On 18/06/07, Nicholas Senske <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Victor--
>>>>> It's not as open as say, Linux, but we feel it's a step in the
>>>>> right
>>>>> direction. People can freely download, learn from, and modify
>>>>> our code
>>>>> for
>>>>> their research. The license just prevents people from taking
>>>>> unfair
>>>>> advantage (for instance, making one change to the program and then
>>>>> selling
>>>>> the whole thing as their own).
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kerstin Sailer | 8 Park Avenue North | London N8 7RT | UK
>>> mobile: +44 77 83404773 | ICQ # 194141160
>>>
>>> www.kerstinsailer.de
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Alasdair Turner
> Course Director MSc Adaptive Architecture and Computation
> Academic Director EngD VEIV Programme
>
> http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/people/alasdair
|