Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Open source agenda.md #257

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update Open source agenda.md #257

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 5 additions & 7 deletions content/21.From-Audio/to-fix-transcription/Misc/Open source agenda.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,11 +1,9 @@
**Open source agenda.**
### Open-source agenda

The fact that somebody open sources or not their code tells a lot about their underlying agenda. In fact, one of the powers of open sourcing code is that it removes from the table a whole number of possible paths, a whole number of possible ways the maker of the code can control what happens in the future.
Whether somebody open-sources their code or not says a lot about their underlying agenda. In fact, one of the powers of open-sourcing code is that it removes a whole number of possible ways the maker of the code can control what happens in the future.

And that is fundamentally my issue, one of my fundamental issues with products or a code that isn't open sourced is that I don't know what the agenda is. Somebody might turn and say, "here is some code, here is some app please use it", but I don't know what they will do in the future.
Not knowing the agenda is one of my fundamental issues with products, or code that isn't open-sourced. Somebody might turn and say, "here is some code, here is some app, please use them", but I don't know what they will do with it in the future.

And you could see because ultimately, a lot of companies like the idea, reserves the right to say, "oh, I might one day close this and sell this". And what that means, it means that it is going to lock you in to their technology, it is going to lock you in to their product or data. So in a way you just made an investment into a product that ultimately might be out of your control.
A lot of companies like the idea of not open-sourcing, because it allows them to reserve the right to say, "Oh, I might close this and sell this one day". This means you are locked into their technology, you are locked into their product or data. You have just made an investment in a product that might ultimately be out of your control.

And that is fundamentally the problem, when something isn't open source, you don't know their agenda, you don't know what they want to do with it in the future, you don't know if basically aren't going to be locked in that particular product in the future.

And that is why for me open source is base camp, open sourcing a product, or open sourcing technology is base camp. It is just the beginning of a long journey to create a vibrant community of developers, contributors, users that are basically able to collaborate in the creation of a particular application or software.
That is why, for me, open-sourcing a product, or open-sourcing technology, is base camp. It is the beginning of a long journey to create a vibrant community of developers, contributors, and users who can collaborate in the creation of a particular application or software.