missing the mark (Score 1)

I think there's a distinction in the cited article that a lot of the people replying to this post may be missing. The author's definition of "Open Source" does not match what most of us would call "Open Source." Here's a quote from the article:

"Management can determine if they want to make an Open Source project available to the public or keep it private."

The author writes this article from the position that "Open Source" simply means writing software using standards-based, collaborative development methods...even if the source is never made available to the public or even the end user.

I think the author describes a lot of good practices for writing software, but what he describes has nothing to do with what most of us would consider "open source" (and certainly not with the official OSI definition). The practices described could easily be used (and are used) by corporations to develop proprietary closed-source software.