Hmmm... Arsenic under the Sugar (Score 1)

Does anyone else detect the poison in this article or have I been reading too many conspiracy articles. Between his tasty names and facts (Open Code, Mmm..., BillG was trying to rip off Harvard!) and occasional relevant observation, I read some serious crap.

For instance: Without losing the moral legitimacy and political strength of its grassroots base, the new software movement needs to evolve new governance/leadership structures to deliberate and advance its interests, strikes me as "you guys aren't good enough to figure out what to do next". Which begs the question, who? And judging from the title, I'd say he intends the H20 project to do it.

Ideally, there are certification tests to assure that an open technology actually meets the specifications. What the heck? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the collective debugging of open source natural assure following spec?

Oh and this one: Brand names are a form of cultural credibility. If so, tell me what is the brand of the scientific method? SciMod? I think not. Brand names are fine for physical manifestations, but are silly for information, much like patents.

And what's with who's supporting H20? They're not programmers, techies, scientists, or even education professors. They're lawyers!!! H20 is backed by Harvard Law School's Berkman Center on Internet & Society. Yes, it's very nice to help out with Open Code, but I do not understand why lawyers would do this. Is there an alterior motive here?

However despite his claims and doubts, I believe that Open Code (IMHO this name is worth keeping) doesn't have to worry about most of the problem he sees. Rather, he's preaching to the greenhorns the joys of Open Code laced with arsenic and making him sound like an idiot to those who survive the damn wordy prose.

I ain't drinking what they're selling.