Re: OS questions draft, III

["Pete St. Onge" <pete_st_onge@iname.com>]

Been following this thread about open source, as it could/would apply to
educational software. I'm wondering if we really should expand on the
open source concept beyond contextualizing it within the survey
questions. Perhaps simply giving the suggestion that the software itself
can be modified to suit the particular educational need(s) may well be
enough to get the educators thinking about what could be accomplished.
If we place a couple of questions about open source earlier in the
survey - maybe a couple of questions in the OS proper, and a couple in
the software section - something I believe we planned to do anyways, we
would still keep the survey as short as possible and educate the new
users, but in a subtle way.

Again, my worry here is that by elaborating on open source - as
important as it is - given the technical nature of the survey itself, 
there are certainly other concepts that could use elaboration for
non-tech users (SMP, networking). These are the very people we want to
reach, and not turn off because of the fact that many in our target
audience just aren't concerned with these issues - they just want to get
their job done. I could be convinced otherwise though (not that I need
to be - I'd be only too happy to put these questions into the survey ...
I'd rather it be too long than incomplete).

[>> Doug, > Roger]
>> Well, I was just trying to get the concept behind open source
>> software down to a few generally understood terms that would fit
>> into the question.  The simpler question would be fine I think,
>> especially if there's a short preface to the questionnaire that
>> explains the terms used later, something like, "In this
>> questionnaire, the phrase 'availability of source code' means the
>> availability of the initial version of a program in humanly
>> understandable form, along with the permission to modify the program
>> and to distribute those modifications so long as such modified
>> programs also include the modified source code under these terms."
>> That probably sounds too lawyerly, but I think a definition of
>> terms so that everyone is answering the same questions is probably
>> a good idea.
> 
> Actually, I'm trying to use as many intuitive terms as possible -- I
> was actually thinking that 'availability of source code' meant simply
> that you could get it through some means. It didn't imply any of the
> other free software additions that we tend to use with source code
> that we get.
> 
> Hm. It's true, though, that the source code for WinNT is "available"
> -- all you need is the willingness to sign some NDAs and other forms,
> a lot of money, and a largish corporation. So there is a limit to
> that definition.
     The last time that happened at an appreciable scale to the Windows
architecture, Northern Telecom was involved. The result bears their
initials ... Windows NT.

> But my point is that I don't want to define 'available' to include
> all four of the above questions. I wanted to only ask one of them.
> This would simplify the question and allow us to actually be able to
> interpret an answer.
> 
> I guess the counter argument is "Well, what about people who think
> that available source also means the freedoms to modify and
> redistribute it? They'll be throwing off the interpretation in the
> other direction."
> 
> Argh. I shall sleep on it, and hope I come up with a good answer. :)
> 
> --Roger





-- 
Pete St. Onge - McGill U.  Limnology - Fun with Ropes & Buckets
pete_st_onge@iname.com         http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4322052
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEUL Expert Group - Linux for All!          http://www.seul.org
Programming For Science Page        http://www.trentu.ca/~erpds