Gil Yehuda

Authored Content

Becoming an open leader

Two years ago I posted a short post that picked up from an HBR article on leadership flaws. I posed the question if Enterprise 2.0 initiatives can thrive in environments where…

Authored Comments

(long ranting comment ahead -- sorry)

When watching Tron with my kid's I nudged them at the "Open Source scene" and said -- hey that's what I do (I run the Open Source process at my company). Then as the scene unfolded, I regretted my association, and explained to my kids that the I don't do what the hero did. What he did was wrong.

You said: "[...] The source code of the operating system is then released to the masses for fair use and improvement of the product. Aside from the psuedo-terrorism aspect, it's a story open source fans can really get behind."

But I can't get behind this. The main motivator for the hero to remain associated with the "evil" corporation is to be able to steal their code and leak/publish it. (BTW, they are evil because of what exactly? cynicism, capitalism, not believing in Open Source? is this where the divide between good and evil lies?) In the ethics of a Robin-Hood world, stealing code from the company and giving it to the masses is called "good". But theft is not the kind of Open Source behavior that I can get behind. An investor (even the largest one) is not granted authority to steal product code and publish it. Moreover, the act of leaking code to the public is not at all the same as the act of placing an Open Source license on code -- legally (you have to own the copyright), morally (we don't advocate theft), or effectively (stolen code does not attract community participation since the liability is great).

Yes, if the company thought about it (and had me advising them), they might do itself and their customers a great service leveraging the benefits of Open Source. But when code is leaked do you think they would get contributions from their community? It's toxic code. This is hardly the kind of Open Source strategy that works.

The strongest and most passionate Open Source advocates speak out against the notion of private intellectual property, and they advocate how openness improves knowledge. FOSS proved critical to the evolution of the Internet and the new economy. It paved the foundation for purposeful sharing and crowdsourcing in the social media space. It created markets for the "little guys" and made money for a bunch of "big guys". And it really stuck it in the eyes of a couple of companies that we all love to hate. But let's stop short of advocating theft as an Open Source virtue.

It is most ironic to me that Hollywood's super wealthy movie executives line their pockets by monetizing our lax sense of ethics and love for the "little guy". They must laugh at how simple minded we are when we are so easily entertained by acts of corporate espionage and property theft by the attractive good guy (who "gets the girl" at the end, of course). Try stealing their movie IP and see how amusing that is to them.

I agree, it was a very entertaining movie. I loved the visual effects (you can decide if I mean the graphics or the costumes -- I admit, both caught my attention). And yes, it was great to see Open Source in pop culture, especially promoted as a virtue. I just wish it was done so in a manner that was legal so that I could tell my kids "that's what I do at work as the Open Source guy!"