<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Baitware, betaware, badgeware, oh my!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boldlyopen.com/2006/12/06/baitware-betaware-badgeware-oh-my/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boldlyopen.com/2006/12/06/baitware-betaware-badgeware-oh-my/</link>
	<description>To boldly muse about Open Source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:18:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elzeviro &#187; Open Development: diversity matters</title>
		<link>http://boldlyopen.com/2006/12/06/baitware-betaware-badgeware-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-42246</link>
		<dc:creator>Elzeviro &#187; Open Development: diversity matters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rabellino.it/blog/?p=189#comment-42246</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;m happy to see Kaj agrees that Open Source should be about community as well, and I applaud to what MySQL has been doing to get external developers involved. Still, I have to stomp my feet somewhat and insist on neutrality as a main component of Open Development (or whatchamacallit, for that matter). The keyword here is diversity, as I mentioned before. Sustainable Open Source, built upon the classical advantages of multiple eyeballs, absence of vendor lock-in, distributed innovation and cooperation among developers needs a community of technical interests, with participation being driven by diverse objectives who happen to share a common goal. A diverse community drives innovation, acts on technical merits rather than business objectives, and protects from orphaned/abandoned code or from whatever might happen to a single company backing a project. Diversity is good. Diversity matters. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;m happy to see Kaj agrees that Open Source should be about community as well, and I applaud to what MySQL has been doing to get external developers involved. Still, I have to stomp my feet somewhat and insist on neutrality as a main component of Open Development (or whatchamacallit, for that matter). The keyword here is diversity, as I mentioned before. Sustainable Open Source, built upon the classical advantages of multiple eyeballs, absence of vendor lock-in, distributed innovation and cooperation among developers needs a community of technical interests, with participation being driven by diverse objectives who happen to share a common goal. A diverse community drives innovation, acts on technical merits rather than business objectives, and protects from orphaned/abandoned code or from whatever might happen to a single company backing a project. Diversity is good. Diversity matters. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

