OPEN SOURCE URBANISM - beware of misuse

folks i've just done a quick internet trawl of our new catchphrase. the first 10 google hits will show you that lots of people have used the phrase. but it means completely different things to almost everyone. there's a sense of using the word 'open source' to broadly denote technology and computers. in other cases it has just been used to mean 'open'. open-source has a much more specific meaning than that, and we need to giard against the evil flippant references that havebeen made to it on the internet. (ironically, the definition of open source has gone open source, and in this case, not contributed anything to the growing pool of knowledge).

my understanding of 'open-source' comes from my MSc dissertation research, which was to do with co-producing public space. i tried to make an analogy with open source softyware. A definition of open source software (source Eric Raymond, 'The cathedral and the Bazaar'): "...the process of systematically harnessing open development and decentralized peer review to lower costs and improve software quality. Open-source software is not a new idea (its traditions go back to the beginnings of the Internet thirty years ago) but only recently have technical and market forces converged to draw it out of a niche role. "

the idea of 'harnessing open development' and 'decentralised peer review' will be quite relevant to our project of designing a vision for an institution.

the other interesting thing is that open source was started by computer hackers. people who bend the rules of software coding copyright in order to create new things. so in a way, open source means 'hacking made legal'. or hacking made productive. the subversive hacker streak is often compared in public space studies to graffiti artists and skateboarders. then, a question for us all is - how can otherwise subversive activities like crossing a lawn through the grass rather than a path be made to add to the qualitites of a place?