Rules of engagement

“Good on ya” as they say. I’m glad of your effort. My computer-whiz son has been in on the development of Linux, so I grasp somewhat of how it can work — certainly better than the West’s “ownership” of “christian” theology these many centuries.

I naturally have questions (meant to move things forward, not detract):

1. There is now a company in the US claiming rights to some of Linux code and suing others. It is far more complicated than I can understand, but as I understand it, you have also in this case the two possible extremes of nothing proprietory = little to no value/participation, and completely proprietory = well, we’ve had a thousand years of that. So, what is the weight/value hoped for? What is the end/product desired?

2. How is the participation related to value? In other words, say, only first-worlders or English speakers participate. Would product be essentially any different than what already exists? Shall a “quota” of participants be established based upon population figures? Who’s to keep this “forum” from being sabotaged or taken over by a particular group with an agenda? And to the extent every participant has their pre-suppositions isn’t “open source” relegated to being merely a reflection of human participation? At best maybe a Westminster Standards kind of product (some might say that is too lofty).

3. “Open source” is a known tag, but what does it mean in this case? For example, what role does God play? What role do the “engagement rules” give to him? What does he say in Scripture about “Source” of theology? Is this re-inventing Magesterium or do we have a solidly biblical perspicacity statement that ought (I hate the word “ought”) to be in the rules of engagement?

Danvporter