On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 09:44:46PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
"James Linden" writes: ...
We don't even provide well-suited tools for the volunteers to use to improve PG, because, oh my god, maybe the tool isn't 100% open-source! Maybe the tool has been offered to PG on a perpetual right to use for PG status, but oh, lordy, that's just not good enough.
I have no idea what the context was on this, and that would be terribly helpful. I'm sceptical to the idea that PG would turn down a great improvement on our current tools merely because they aren't open source. However, open source is about the flexibility to get the job done. There was a non-web based frontend to DP, but it had to be abandoned because the author disappeared and nobody had the source to fix it as the site changed. Having an open-source program means we can fix it, we can port it, and we don't have to worry about whether we're using it for "PG status" or for Rastko or for our private project. That's a valuable thing, and something that PG should push for when possible.
I've never heard or seen a "party line" on open source from/for PG. Yes, it's preferable for the reasons David mentions. Yes, it's often free (which matters a lot when we want volunteers to get their own copy). Yes, there is a conceptual alignment between PG's efforts to enhance the public domain and many open source philosophies. But we're essentially pramatists, using the tools we have available to do the best job we can do. If people have tools to offer, they can/should offer them. There is a full range of tools in use at PG, and lots of stuff we developed ourselves. There's always room for more tools that people might be able to use. -- Greg