20 minutes

== topic

what is the open source way and how does it relate to open access


== Narrative

The key takeaway is that FLOSS is derivative of the scientific method,
and is mainly proving points that really shouldn't be disputed. This
proof point should be used as a leverage ... or spearpoint ... to make
open access just one of the many facets of a vital scientific future.

FLOSS is rooted in a practical application of the scientific method by
infusing and embedding that method throughout the process. It's one
thing to publish all the details of your science so that others can
replicate; similarly you can learn from others in the work you do; and
so on.

But in FLOSS we have a special gift in software as a medium that
allows us to go beyond merely publishing methods and results. It is
trivial, easy, and nearly no cost to provide 100% of the work being
done -- you give another scientist more than a "help up the ladder"
you allow that person to suddenly appear on the roof of a new
building, with the blueprints, tools, materials, and fellow carpenters
actively working to build this structure in a way that /now includes
the innovation and hard work/ of the new carpenter.

In order to make this actually work, those of us who work in FLOSS are
always having to consider how the 'practice' of what we do is only
like a religion in that we have to "do the practice very day or you
will be very damned."

For example, as a writer my personal hardest FLOSS rule to follow is
that of "release early, release often." I don't like to let my words
get our until I like how they sound. It requires me following the
practice of the open source way /religiously/ for me to gain the
benefits; left to my own devices I might not follow the rule at all.

Let's look at this from another angle. When looking at the history of
humanity, people look to all manner of inventions -- the wheel,
gunpowder, steel, penicillin, etc. -- as bright lines that once
crossed changed the course of human history forever.

For myself, there is one brightest line of them all, and that is the
broad acceptance of the scientific method. Since we did that and began
to gain the advantag of standing on the shoulders of others, of
benefitting directly from their work, we have truly become giants on
this Earth. Looking at the scientific, cultural, politial,
humanitarian accomplishments of the last half-millenium really shows a
sharp contrast compared to the general course of human history in the
past.

Yet ironically, it was local, practical application of rudimentary or
even advanced instinences of the scientific method that brought about
many of these other bright-shiny-lines of history. What was the
difference?

I maintain that the difference is the scientific method finally became
a 'meme', an idea encoded like a gene to be able to
self-replicate. Once the idea spread across the brains of humans, we
couldn't help ourselves -- to many the truth was evident, 


== slides & notes