Am I nervous?  No.

Do I have cold feet?  No.

The next book in the epic saga of my life starts at 2pm PDT on Saturday.

Someone may be on the job market after this little gem:

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I think that open source is a fabulous thing, but by no means is the only way. Some people say that having the source code open is an invitation to malicious code, data vandals and viruses. Those people only need to look at the largest closed operating system in use today (Windows) to see that protecting your secrets is no way to guarentee security. Just as an open source project has its code open for anyone to look at to find an exploit, it is also open that anyone can find that exploit and report it. Thankfully there are still more honest people in the world than dishonest people, at least when you are talking about software.

For those that argue that programmers should be able to control and profit from their software you only need to look at Linux Torvalds to see that open source can be a career enhancer. There is nothing preventing you from controlling or profiting from your code, open source is not mandatory. You may have to write more of your code from scratch if the libraries you want to reuse that were written by others are licensed to prevent you from using them in a closed manner, but that is just that libraries coder controlling and profiting (in getting to see and use what you do with his/her code as opposed to money) from it.

It is proven that you can profit from an open model. The SugarCRM customer relationship management software suite is an example of this. Available for all, but they will host it or customize it or support it for you… for a fee.

Open source allows for far more innovation in a community by establishing defined rules for sharing your work and research.

When I look at questions like this I am reminded of the U.S. Supreme Court case, “Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.” also know and the “Betamax Case”. The decision of the court was that “making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement.” (Wikipedia)

It established a rule for technology that might be used to infringe copyright law, specifically: “The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses…” (464 U.S. 417)

I think this is a excellent test for all technology. If a product is capable of and primarily used for legal purposes then thats all I require. I am not interested in buying anti-counterfeiting printers or scanners. I am not going to counterfeit anything, but as the consumer I have to pay a higher price for something I don’t want.

This puts government in a bad spot, but penalizing the many for the actions of the few is not acceptable.

References:

Wikipedia Foundation (2006). Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. [WWW Page].

U.S. Supreme Court (1984). Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 [WWW Page].

Digital data will not last forever unless we decide it is important. To my mind this is a good thing. In 200 years I really don’t care if an anthropologist can look at my past bank statements. The other side of the digital data explosion is that most of the data in the world now is CRAP. I don’t want to keep every spam message I have ever received. The important data I will chose to preserve.

I don’t think this is particularly different from the written word. Some people saved everything on paper, but many kept only what was important. If something is important to me I will have it backed up and it will move forward in technology as I do.