[plug] [link] [OT] Open Source genetics

[James Devenish]

Hi,

In message <1070385502.768.16.camel at Shambhala>
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:18:22AM +0800, Sham Chukoury wrote:
> Hmmm, indeed. May I suggest an alternative perspective to your 'lone
> hobbyist-inventor' vs 'large wealthy corporations' idea...

My point is that "open source" is well and good in itself, but it (e.g.
the OSI definition) is insufficient because it is only "information",
not "resources". My view is not about "hobbyists versus corporations" as
such, but that undermining the distribution of resources in the name of
being "open" is not pragmatic. A point in the original article was about
"tools" versus "products/applications", as though there was some clear
distinction. If "take a look around", how many products/applications are
definitely not tools and how many tools are definitely not products/
applications? The resources have to be supported by *someone*: same as
with software -- it just happens that computers are a particularly
"easy" resource to support in places that already support them. With
software, you don't have to throw away your computer after each use, you
don't have to start your code from scratch if you make a mistake on line
15233, you can go to lunch and the computer will just "sit still" while
you're away, you can find a wide variety of off-the-shelf components
that don't require special handling, etc, etc. So many things that are
taken for granted. Not to mention the human resources.

> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html (especially
> opening paragraphs, with referrences to
> http://www.designthatmatters.org/ and http://www.thinkcycle.org/)

My point is to look at phrases such as "who has master's degrees",
"medical expertise", "medical devices company", etc -- somebody is
supporting those prerequisites. That's a great deal of support that
is required to both produce and utilise the open designs.

> In a nutshell: Open source methods don't only exist to give leverage to
> individual hobbyists scattered all around the world, against large
> wealthy corporations.

I apologise if this is the impresison I gave. I don't subscribe to that
view at all.

> They offer a *complementary* alternative to the corporate way of doing
> things.

That's my thinking, too.

> That is, people, or groups of people, who may or may not be so-called
> hobbyists, can benefit from certain applications of open source
> methods,

Sure, though open collaboration methods predate FSF, OSI, "open source",
etc.