A few years ago, when I was working in a job, I attended a social media course. There was a training budget to use up, and I couldn’t find any technical courses worth attending. So I attended the social media one.
At one point in the one-day course, the trainer was showing the attendees how easy it was to create a Wikipedia entry. He showed the update history. He showed how to edit other Wikipedia entries.
Now I’m going to tell you about a book I read recently. Don’t worry, it’s related. The book is “Geekonomics” by David Rice. There’s a chapter on open source (specifically related to software development).
Rice wrote that the openness of the open source movement might also be its downfall. Because anyone can contribute to an open source project, anyone does.
He also wrote that open source project contributors are typically not paid (in the form of money). They contribute for geek cred. And if you don’t contribute anything, you don’t get any geek cred at all.
And so developers typically contribute to features the developers want themselves or that the features are cool, and not because the features are user-requested or even helpful to the project. I mean they’re not paid, so they might as well do something cool.
Remember, no contribution, no geek cred.
Now Wikipedia is successful because if any “amateur” goes in to create “useless” entries or update existing entries with wrong information, there’s someone else who’s willing to go in and change it. The long tail of contributors work here because the entries aren’t typically arcane. And that contributors are motivated enough to make Wikipedia better.
Open source software projects don’t work quite as well. Amateur developers add useless or unnecessary features. No one wants to go in and edit code. Because developers do it for geek cred, if you go in and delete their stuff, even if their stuff is unnecessary or possibly even detrimental, the original developer/contributor is going to be upset with you. Because you’re removing their geek cred.
This had put me in a bit of a quandary. For the purposes of this article, I’ll define “open source” as:
- Source code is available
- Licensing is such that users are able to study, change, redistribute the software and the source code
I’m not sure about the licensing part. Any license that qualifies as open-source is good enough for me.
And “closed source” will be defined as “not everything that has to do with the software is made available”. I’ll explain the meaning in a bit.
I made a spreadsheet library and made it open source. It’s open source because the source code is available for anyone to read. I’ve licensed it with the MIT License, which basically allows you to do whatever you want with very few restrictions.
It’s also closed, because I didn’t include the .csproj file and the strong name key file in the downloadable package. There are various reasons, but the main ones are that I intend to keep the branding and that there’s only one “original” SpreadsheetLight library running out there (mine). Anyone who forks my source code can compile it, but the resulting DLL won’t be the “original”, so to speak.
So I consider my project as clopen source. “Clopen” is a mathematical term used in topology to mean both open and closed. I’m not going to bore you with the details. Go Google the definition yourself.
The main point I had was that, while my project was open source, I don’t quite encourage open collaboration. Open collaboration is not a requirement for a project to be considered open source. And it is open source, because you can view all the source code.
My main motivation was that I had a specific vision for the project, which was to make the spreadsheet library as easy to use as possible for developers who are on a tight schedule and don’t have time to learn how to make spreadsheets with a third party library. This meant I had to maintain strict control over things like method signatures and even method/property/class names.
Can you imagine having just anyone coming in to change the source code? Or just adding a feature because they need it, but the intended developer audience doesn’t need it?
Not every contributor is interested in being aligned with the project’s vision and purpose.