On 9/21/07, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
> I'm sure Tomasz realizes this, but I want to make something clear: This
> is a _different thing_ than 'open source'. Even if I have a
> proprietary/commercial solution, I need that solution to offer APIs
> which give access to the data and services that product houses. [And I
> need those API calls to be reasonably speedy to access!]. Perhaps open
> source applications are more likely for market reasons to have these
> open APIs, but there's no technical reason a proprietary solution can't.
There is one good reason to prefer open source(*) to mere "openness":
it guarantees that the work stays open. How many of you have built
things atop proprietary systems, only to have the system change to
your detriment when the vendor demands you upgrade?
* Disclaimer: I make my living off of open source. Here I'm applying
the concept to more than actual source code, but it's still true even
if we apply it to documentation, standards, API's, etc. Does AACR
protect folks from patents that may lurk in their standard? I have no
idea.
--
Jason Etheridge
| VP, Community Support and Advocacy
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: jason_at_esilibrary.com
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
Received on Fri Sep 21 2007 - 15:30:04 EDT