 |
 |
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 > -- Lucas Figueiredo http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/ Mindwalk http://www.mindwalk.com.br