Actually, I think a site that an open source for websites would be wikipedia... sure, it takes things to run, but look, its all controlled by the community and some volunteers....
Seth! Leary wrote: > > All: > > I find the comparisons that are getting tossed about quite interesting. > > Running a web site like geocaching.com is not at all analogous to creating > software. Software (Firefox, IE, Linux, Windows) is a single product that > gets replicated thousands of times. Nobody comes back to the well > until you > build a new version. A large website is an organic product that gets used > directly (not replicated) by thousands of users daily. That places a much > larger burden on the web site's host/owner if the site is getting used as > much as geocaching.com is used. > > Thus, the open-source argument holds little water. If Groundspeak were to > give away the database, what would happen? The only thing possible; > another > commercial entity would spring up. If I spend 1,000 hours writing a > piece of > software and I choose to give it away, it doesn't matter whether I > give away > one copy or a million; it still cost me 1,000 hours to make and I am > out no > more and no less. But if I (or Groundspeak) create a web site, it makes a > huge difference whether one person hits it per month or a million. Look at > wikipedia. It does not have advertising but it would sink if it were not > funded by vast numbers of donation dollars. The money has to come from > somewhere. > > The Bell break-up has already been mentioned. I think it's worth pointing > out that this is much more comparable than software. Those of us old > enough > to remember the good old days of Ma Bell will recall that the break-up > was a > debacle and is still a nightmare. No matter how you slice it, there can > really only be one REAL phone company in any given region and everyone > else > has to rent that company's wires. It's all smoke and mirrors. But > perhaps I > digress. > > You can't convince me that Groundspeak could have made an 'admirable' > choice > (by either keeping the site ad-free and membership-free or giving away the > database) and it would still be alive and well and as robust as it is now > unless you can show me a truly comparable example. Firefox is not the > example and I don't think that there is one out there. > > I'm also curious about this remark from Scout: "[Jeremy] had lawyers to > threaten lawsuits against others with a different vision for the hobby." > > Is this a reference to an actual event or just speculation? I don't recall > this happening. > > Seth! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]