We designed the show to invert the traditional relationship between broadcast and the web: we aren’t a public radio show with a web community, we’re a web community that produces a daily hour of radio.
Recently I’ve run into similarly expansive uses of the term open source. Here’s Brian Jones reflecting on his experience at a Harvard workshop entitled “Cross-Boundary Governance through Agreements and Standards”:
I had previously thought about open source more in terms of the licensing model chosen. Well obviously the folks from the defense department weren’t thinking they wanted to put all the content under the GPL, but instead they wanted a system where people could easily share information within their targeted community.
One of the primary benefits to customers of using Open Source software is that it denies vendor lock-in because the source code is available and freely redistributable. This is a strong benefit when the source code is physically distributed to the user either as desktop software or as server software that the user installs.
Things are different in the “Web 2.0” world of social software for two reasons. The obvious one being that the software isn’t physically distributed to the users but the less obvious reason is that social software depends on network effects.
For years now, I’ve been tracing an arc from open source software to open services to open data. What’s the common thread? Collaboration. People working together in shared information spaces, using shared technical and social protocols, to achieve shared goals.
If you asked me to define the essence of openness, I couldn’t say it any better than that.