| rev |
line source |
|
meillo@37
|
1 \chapter{About \freesw\ projects}
|
|
meillo@26
|
2
|
|
meillo@57
|
3 % http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/
|
|
meillo@57
|
4
|
|
meillo@45
|
5 There are several differences between \freesw\ projects and projects about proprietary software.
|
|
meillo@45
|
6 To understand \freesw\ projects, one needs to understand \freesw\ itself first.
|
|
meillo@37
|
7
|
|
meillo@37
|
8 \section{About \freesw}
|
|
meillo@50
|
9 The term ``Free Software'' was coined by the \name{Free Software Foundation} (short: \NAME{FSF}), founded by Richard~M.\ Stallman (known as ``RMS'') in 1985.
|
|
meillo@48
|
10 Although various licenses make software free, none of them represents the thinking of \freesw\ like the the \GNU\ \gpl\ (short: \GPL). Its first version was written by Stallman in 1989.
|
|
meillo@48
|
11 One could say, the \GPL\ catalized the \name{Free Software movement}.
|
|
meillo@37
|
12
|
|
meillo@57
|
13 % http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
|
|
meillo@57
|
14
|
|
meillo@48
|
15 After all, the \GPL\ was not the first \freesw\ license used.
|
|
meillo@48
|
16 The \name{MIT License} (or \name{X Consortium License}) for example is older; published in 1988.
|
|
meillo@48
|
17 Licenses providing the same rights have been used since long time ago.
|
|
meillo@48
|
18 But none of them was so often (re)used by other projects---thus gattering less awareness.
|
|
meillo@48
|
19 Further more was the \GPL\ created to be a \emph{general} license for all kinds of programs, unlike most other licenses written for one particular program.
|
|
meillo@37
|
20
|
|
meillo@45
|
21 \freesw\ gives freedoms to its users.
|
|
meillo@45
|
22 In contrast to proprietary software restricting the users freedom.
|
|
meillo@48
|
23 The freedoms (or rights) the user has are stated in the \name{Free Software Definition} of the \NAME{FSF}. Namely these are:
|
|
meillo@57
|
24 % http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
|
|
meillo@57
|
25 % http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
|
|
meillo@37
|
26 \begin{enumerate}
|
|
meillo@48
|
27 \item The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
|
|
meillo@48
|
28 \item The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
|
|
meillo@48
|
29 \item The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
|
|
meillo@48
|
30 \item The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
|
|
meillo@37
|
31 \end{enumerate}
|
|
meillo@37
|
32
|
|
meillo@37
|
33
|
|
meillo@37
|
34 \section{The term ``Open Source''}
|
|
meillo@45
|
35 \name{Open Source Software} often stands for the same as \freesw.
|
|
meillo@45
|
36 But there is an essential difference: \name{Open Source} focuses on the availability of source code, while \freesw\ is about freedoms for people.
|
|
meillo@37
|
37
|
|
meillo@43
|
38 \name{Open Source Software} is a subset of \freesw, meaning: All \freesw\ is \name{Open Source}, but there exists \name{Open Source Software} that is not free.
|
|
meillo@37
|
39
|
|
meillo@57
|
40 % http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|
|
meillo@57
|
41 % http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
|
|
meillo@57
|
42
|
|
meillo@37
|
43
|
|
meillo@37
|
44 \section{Development of \freesw}
|
|
meillo@45
|
45 Having source code available and the right to modify it, encouridges programmers to actually do so.
|
|
meillo@45
|
46 Their modifications are manifoldly.
|
|
meillo@45
|
47 Some tailor the software to their needs.
|
|
meillo@45
|
48 Some add features.
|
|
meillo@45
|
49 Some do it just for fun.
|
|
meillo@45
|
50 There are no limitations---whoever wants to, may work on it.
|
|
meillo@37
|
51
|
|
meillo@45
|
52 Since the boom of the internet, \freesw\ typically is developed by an open community of programmers interested in the software.
|
|
meillo@45
|
53 The process of development is watchable by everyone.
|
|
meillo@37
|
54
|
|
meillo@37
|
55 The other, now less common, method is a more closed group, developing in a ``sealed'' room, but releasing finished versions to the public.
|
|
meillo@37
|
56
|
|
meillo@52
|
57 Eric~S.\ Raymond discusses about these methods, which he named \name{the bazaar} and \name{the cathedral} \cite{catb}.
|
|
meillo@37
|
58
|
|
meillo@38
|
59 The following text will focus on the ``bazaar'' model.
|
|
meillo@38
|
60
|
|
meillo@37
|
61
|
|
meillo@37
|
62 \section{The role of the community}
|
|
meillo@37
|
63 \freesw\ projects rise and fall with their community!
|
|
meillo@37
|
64
|
|
meillo@45
|
65 Most \freesw\ programs are developed by a very small group of programmers, often only one person.
|
|
meillo@45
|
66 But they are used by many people.
|
|
meillo@45
|
67 In between the programmers and the users, are people located who are a bit of both.
|
|
meillo@45
|
68 These are the ones that write documentation, find bugs and probably even fix it.
|
|
meillo@45
|
69 They discuss on mailing lists, bulletin boards and \NAME{IRC} chats.
|
|
meillo@45
|
70 The program is often spread by their ``advertising''.
|
|
meillo@37
|
71
|
|
meillo@45
|
72 The \emph{community} consists of the actual developers and all users that contribute to the program.
|
|
meillo@45
|
73 Contribution can be one of the described ways, or others like providing a server for the project website for example.
|
|
meillo@37
|
74
|
|
meillo@45
|
75 \emph{Community} is everyone who is in contact through the project.
|
|
meillo@45
|
76 Be it on the mailing list, the discussion board, or by telling the developers about a new feature wanted.
|
|
meillo@37
|
77
|
|
meillo@45
|
78 There will hardly be a community if no communication channels are available.
|
|
meillo@48
|
79 If the development team does not provide them, there is a chance that encouraged users set them up on their own.
|
|
meillo@45
|
80 But this is rare and the program needs to be very popular. %TODO: maybe include an example here (w3m?)
|
|
meillo@37
|
81
|
|
meillo@37
|
82 Projects without a good community tend to die sooner or later.
|
|
meillo@37
|
83
|
|
meillo@37
|
84
|
|
meillo@37
|
85 \section{Evolution of a community}
|
|
meillo@45
|
86 Let us look at the process a community establishes: In most times it's only one who has an idea, in the beginning.
|
|
meillo@45
|
87 He starts developing.
|
|
meillo@45
|
88 When others get in contact with the project, there may be some who are so much interested that they start co-developing.
|
|
meillo@45
|
89 Others report bugs, and some only use the program.
|
|
meillo@37
|
90
|
|
meillo@45
|
91 After some time, one will find a small group of core developers, a larger group of contributers (bugs, patches, documentation) and a very large group of users.
|
|
meillo@45
|
92 The size ratio of the groups vary by type of project.
|
|
meillo@37
|
93
|
|
meillo@37
|
94 One should have that in mind, when starting a \freesw\ project.
|
|
meillo@37
|
95
|
|
meillo@37
|
96
|
|
meillo@37
|
97 \section{Creating a strong community}
|
|
meillo@37
|
98 Building up a good community needs some effort of the main developers.
|
|
meillo@38
|
99 %TODO: search for documents about this topic
|
|
meillo@37
|
100
|
|
meillo@37
|
101 First communication channels need to be set up, to enable the growth of a community.
|
|
meillo@37
|
102
|
|
meillo@45
|
103 Second, development should be visible by everyone who is interested in it.
|
|
meillo@45
|
104 Time between work done on the project and its visibility to the public should be kept short.
|
|
meillo@45
|
105 This makes it interesting for other developers to join.
|
|
meillo@45
|
106 Developers are the core of a community.
|
|
meillo@37
|
107
|
|
meillo@50
|
108 Third, there is a rule of thumb that should be followed: ``Release early, release often!'' \cite{catb}.
|
|
meillo@45
|
109 Releases are (more) stable versions, primary for users.
|
|
meillo@45
|
110 They should be created, frequently.
|
|
meillo@45
|
111 People will more likely use programs of active projects.
|
|
meillo@37
|
112
|
|
meillo@45
|
113 Fourth, the developers should try to get the users ``in the boat''.
|
|
meillo@45
|
114 Good communities have a large group of users that do not only receive, but also give something back to the project.
|
|
meillo@45
|
115 The project leaders should motivate users to contribute.
|
|
meillo@45
|
116 This unlocks a big work force and gets lot of unexiting work done.
|
|
meillo@38
|
117
|
|
meillo@45
|
118 Fifth, documentation matters.
|
|
meillo@45
|
119 Good documentation makes it easy for users and developers to start.
|
|
meillo@45
|
120 And it helps to avoid a lot of unsatisfaction.
|
|
meillo@45
|
121 Documentation is something that shows quality and that people care about the project.
|
|
meillo@38
|
122
|
|
meillo@45
|
123 And sixth, project leaders should be good souvereigns.
|
|
meillo@45
|
124 They should try to be fair, to motivate, be visionaires and try to put power and work on many shoulders.
|
|
meillo@38
|
125
|
|
meillo@45
|
126 Not to forget: Every work that was done, every contribution that was made and every idea received needs to be honored in an appropriate way!
|
|
meillo@45
|
127 Volunteer work lives by acknowledgement of the effort spent.
|
