Reading08

I think what is so appealing about open source to others is the reputation component. It sounds bad to say, but everyone loves a little ego boost. In the reading, they briefly explained how gift culture can be found in the wealthy community which makes sense because it is a community where people may have enough materialistically such that your reputation is the next best thing to build, gain, and improve upon. To reference the ideas from hackers and painters, another appeal of open source is simply sharing your work for the sake of sharing it, looking for feedback, or simply having fun. Hackers like painters, can choose whether to share their art with the world or keep it to themselves. Art can be recreated yet it is not something they fear because, with each recreation, there is always something different or some aspect that appeals to different people. For example, using different mediums and or angles for the same art subject, or different variations of Photoshop like GIMP or Krita. The moral of the story is that open source allows for various expressions and recreations, but with great access comes great responsibility…

When first going through the taboos, I was shocked at the very first one. If not forking, what is the point of open source? I think a big part of open source is for collaboration purposes. I am not saying just fork it and claim it, but there is something to say about taking an outline or idea and making it your own (recreation). I think when forking, you should alter/add to files to differentiate it from the original, yet you should still give credit where credit is due. When you have to ask for permission to make changes, it takes away from the point of open source. Why would I want to view the project if I have to jump through hoops to change something about it? I would like to say that I am assuming that they are not disturbing the original project files, if you were then yes I would agree that you should talk with the creator. It is important to change the name if it is altered and still give credit to the original. Finally, I completely agree with the last, taking the original creators’ names off of the project is absurd, it is insensitive and disrespectful. 

Those taboos are rules specific to the open-source community, which also is compared more closely to a gift culture. Before, I explained how gift cultures were found in wealthy communities, which is not the average human reality. The open-source gift culture is different than the societal exchange culture, moreover, I feel like those differences can deter people from open source. Many people may be used to the exchange culture and how it promotes a reputation in a different way. The focus in the exchange culture is how much you control. I think this is a form of your reputation because just as easily as you can gain control, you can lose it. The amount of control defines your reputation in the exchange culture while the gift culture is about about how much you can give away. These two things seem conflicting and hard to find an intersection between, so many may be against what is most foreign to them. If I am being honest, I do not know how to sustain a healthy community in a society where the culture is different than the norm. At the end of the day, people will do what they want regardless, however, to sustain a healthy environment, I think that it is important to have some sort of specific commonality. I feel like every community has some sort of commonality and or goal so it has a set of beliefs or standards. It is important to remember that there can be a common understanding between the different beliefs and standards within a community that still promotes creativity and individuality.