Has open source gone too far?

Does open source deserve to play everywhere, as a business model, a licensing scheme, perhaps even a paint thinner? Or do the software folks deserve an exclusive on it?

I come in for criticism here when I write about the open source concept being extended into areas like politics and journalism.

It doesn't belong there, the critics charge. Where's the license agreement? You're rendering the concept meaningless.

OK, so how about cars? Or music?

Pictured here, from the Core77 Design blog, is the c,mm,n (pronounced common), a hydrogen-powered two-seater whose technical designs and drawings are freely available online, and to which you may contribute, so long as your innovations fall under the same sharing agreement. (It also helps if you speak Dutch.)

If you don't like the comma, or semi-colon, or whatever it is, there's another, similar venture on the drawing boards called OScar. It's a nifty little three-wheeler which, like V-Dub, is representing Deutschland. They're only on Version 0.5, however -- maybe with Version 1 they get the fourth wheel.

OK, but how do you get open source music? Through SonikDub, an Irish outfit which aims to publish your music free, and offer such things as representation or CD reproduction for a fee.

CEO Denver Thomas, responding in an online music forum, said SonikDub is employing the same technology used by bands like Arctic Monkeys to break out of nowhere while the musicians retained their rights. Of course I'm using the same technology as Andrew Sullivan to write this...

Does open source deserve to play everywhere, as a business model, a licensing scheme, perhaps even a paint thinner? Or do the software folks deserve an exclusive on it?

Newsletters

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
See All
See All