From 9b5e3c46c7a21dbc91fd84345d0e6f6cfa7548f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nicolas Daube <nicolas.daube@student.uclouvain.be>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:01:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Syllabus Modification

---
 Contributors.md                               |  4 ++
 README.md                                     |  6 +++
 syllabus/0_practical.md                       | 17 ++++++-
 syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md                 |  7 ++-
 .../2023-03-14-importance-des-licences.gmi    | 43 ----------------
 syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md      | 49 +++++++++++++++++++
 syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md      | 15 +++---
 syllabus/4_licenses.md                        |  4 +-
 syllabus/5_opensource.md                      |  4 +-
 9 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Contributors.md
 delete mode 100644 syllabus/2023-03-14-importance-des-licences.gmi
 create mode 100644 syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md

diff --git a/Contributors.md b/Contributors.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c063000
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Contributors.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+This is the list of contributors to this repository:
+
+- [Lionel Dricot](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot)
+- Nicolas Daube
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index f81f03e..6ee0e99 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -26,4 +26,10 @@ Fork or clone this repository. Open slides/index.html file in your browser. Pres
 
 Please contribute your notes to this course, as comments for the slides or even as separate notes. This will help students that cannot attend the course.
 
+## Syllabus
+
+A small syllabus concerning the course is available in the syllabus folder.
+
+Click [here](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/0_practical.md) to get started.
+
 
diff --git a/syllabus/0_practical.md b/syllabus/0_practical.md
index 4ab74ed..9f2cb43 100644
--- a/syllabus/0_practical.md
+++ b/syllabus/0_practical.md
@@ -1,10 +1,23 @@
+# LINFO2401 - Open Source Strategy for Software development
+
+## Index 
+
+- [Why Are we here ?](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md)
+- [Licenses Importance](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md)
+- [Stallman and free software](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md)
+- [Licenses](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/4_licenses.md)
+- [Open Source](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/5_opensource.md)
+
 # Exam
 
-# project
+# projects
 
 Yep. You need to know programming. You need to learn git.
 
-https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401
+There are several projects for this course, infos [here](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/intro.md)
 
 # book
 
+You need to read a book. For more instructions, see [here](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/books.md)
+
+## [Next chapter â–º](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md b/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md
index ef81354..1e612aa 100644
--- a/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md
+++ b/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md
@@ -28,11 +28,11 @@ And we are software engineers. Thus enginerers, are we?
 
 When you learn to design a bridge, you have to deal with lot of constraints. There are human arbitrary constraints: how much will it cost? What’s the rule to build a bridge in that landscape? What kind of traffic will go through that bridge?
 
-Those constraints are human and arbitrary. It means that they are there only because someone else decided it was like that. Or people belief it should be like this. This is all about human beliefs. It’s not science.
+Those constraints are human and arbitrary. It means that they are there only because someone else decided it was like that. Or people believe it should be like this. This is all about human beliefs. It’s not science.
 
 Yet, there are a lot of scientific constraints: what materials are available at that place? How will it resists gravity? And potential earthquake? How will it vibrate?
 
-Those are physical constraints. You cannot negotiate theme. They are imposed by the laws of nature. That’s why engineers are scientists: they should obey the laws of nature first. The first rule is "the bridge should not collapse". It’s a complex set of equation but with a very precise boolean answer. Either the bridge is safe, either it is not. There’s no negotiation.
+Those are physical constraints. You cannot negotiate them. They are imposed by the laws of nature. That’s why engineers are scientists: they should obey the laws of nature first. The first rule is "the bridge should not collapse". It’s a complex set of equation but with a very precise boolean answer. Either the bridge is safe, either it is not. There’s no negotiation.
 
 Now, what are the physical constraints faced by a computer engineer?
 
@@ -65,3 +65,6 @@ So we must always keep in minds those questions:
 - How will we achieve that?
 
 # What should I trully learn?
+
+
+## [â—„ Previous chapter](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/0_practical.md) | [Next chapter â–º](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/syllabus/2023-03-14-importance-des-licences.gmi b/syllabus/2023-03-14-importance-des-licences.gmi
deleted file mode 100644
index df3bca3..0000000
--- a/syllabus/2023-03-14-importance-des-licences.gmi
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-# De l’importance de comprendre ce qu’est une licence
-
-On entend souvent que les programmes informatiques ou les œuvres en ligne sont publiées sous une licence. Qu’est-ce que cela signifie ? Et en quoi est-ce important ?
-
-Pour simplifier, dans nos sociétés, tout échange se fait suivant un contrat. Ce contrat peut être implicite, mais il existe. Si j’achète une pomme au marché, le contrat implicite est qu’après avoir payé, je reçois ma pomme et je peux en faire ce que je veux. 
-
-Pour les biens matériels dits « rivaux », le contrat de vente implique souvent un transfert de la propriété du bien. Mais il y’a parfois d’autres clauses au contrat. Comme les garanties.
-
-Là où les choses se corsent, c’est lorsque le bien échangé est dit « non-rival ». C’est-à-dire que le bien peut être copié ou acheté plusieurs fois sans impact pour les acheteurs. Dans le cas qui nous concerne, on parle typiquement d’un logiciel ou d’une œuvre numérique (film, livre, musique …). Il est évident que l’achat numérique ne nous donne aucune propriété sur l’œuvre.
-
-Il faut signaler que, pendant longtemps, la non-rivalité des biens comme les musiques, les livres ou les films a été camouflée par le fait que le support, lui, était un bien rival. Si j’achète un livre papier, j’en suis propriétaire. Mais je n’ai pas pour autant les droits sur le contenu !  Les supports numériques et Internet ont dissipé cette confusion entre l’œuvre et le support. 
-
-Pour réguler tout cela, l’achat d’une œuvre numérique ou d’un programme informatique est, comme tout achat, soumis à un contrat, contrat qui stipule les droits et les obligations exactes que l’acheteur va recevoir. La licence n’est jamais qu’un contrat type, une sorte de modèle de contrat standard. Ce contrat, et une bonne partie de notre société, se base sur la présupposition que, tout comme un bien rival, un bien non-rival se doit d’avoir un propriétaire. C’est bien entendu arbitraire et je vous invite à questionner ce principe un peu trop souvent admis comme une loi naturelle.
-
-Il est important de signaler que chaque transaction vient avec son propre contrat. Il est possible de donner des droits à un acheteur et pas à un autre. C’est d’ailleurs ce principe qui permet la pratique de « double licence » (ou dual-licensing).
-
-## Droits et obligations définis par la licence
-
-Dans notre société, toute œuvre est, par défaut, sous la licence du copyright. C’est-à-dire que l’acheteur ne peut rien faire d’autre que consulter l’œuvre et l’utiliser à des fins personnelles. Tout autre utilisation, partage, modification est bannie par défaut.
-
-À l’opposé, il existe le domaine public. Les œuvres dans le domaine public ne sont associées à aucun droit particulier : chacun peut les utiliser, modifier et redistribuer à sa guise.
-
-L’une des escroqueries intellectuelles majeures des absolutistes du copyright est d’avoir réussi à nous faire croire qu’il n’y avait pas d’alternatives entre ces deux extrêmes. Tout comme on est soit propriétaire de la pomme, soit on n’en est pas propriétaire, la fiction veut qu’on soit soit propriétaire d’une œuvre (détenteur du copyright), soit rien du tout, juste bon à regarder. C’est bien entendu faux.
-
-Si la licence est un mur d’obligations auxquelles doit se soumettre l’acheteur, il est possible de n’en prendre que certaines briques. Par exemple, on peut donner tous les droits à l’utilisateur sauf celui de s’approprier la paternité d’une œuvre. Les licences BSD, MIT ou Creative Commons By, par exemple, requièrent de citer l’auteur original. Mais on peut toujours modifier et redistribuer.
-
-La licence CC By-ND, elle, oblige à citer l’auteur, mais ne permet pas de modifications. On peut redistribuer une telle œuvre.
-
-Un point important c’est que lorsqu’on redistribue une œuvre existante, on peut modifier la licence, mais seulement si on rajoute des contraintes, des briques. J’ai donc le droit de prendre une œuvre sous licence CC By, de la modifier puis de la redistribuer sous CC By-ND. Par contre, je ne peux évidemment pas retirer des briques et faire l’inverse. Dans toute redistribution, la nouvelle licence doit être soit équivalente, soit plus restrictive.
-
-Le problème de cette approche, c’est que tout va finir par se restreindre vu qu’on ne peut que restreindre les droits des utilisateurs ! C’est d’ailleurs ce qui se passe dans des grandes entreprises comme Google, Facebook ou Apple qui utilisent des milliers de programmes open source gratuits et les transforment en programmes propriétaires. Un véritable pillage du patrimoine open source !
-
-## Le copyleft ou interdiction de rajouter des briques
-
-C’est là que l’idée de Richard Stallman tient du génie : en inventant la licence GPL, Richard Stallman a en effet inventé la brique « interdiction de rajouter d’autres briques ». Vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer un logiciel sous licence GPL. Mais la modification doit être également sous GPL.
-
-C’est également l’idée de la clause Share-Alike des Creative Commons. Une œuvre publiée sous licence CC By-SA (comme le sont mes livres aux éditions PVH) peut être modifiée, redistribuée et même revendue. À condition d’être toujours sous une licence CC By-SA ou équivalente.
-
-Par ironie, on désigne par « copyleft » les licences qui empêchent de rajouter des briques et donc de privatiser des ressources. Elles ont souvent été présentées comme « contaminantes » voire comme des « cancers » par Microsoft, Apple, Google ou Facebook. Ces entreprises se présentent désormais comme des grands défenseurs de l’open source. Mais elles luttent de toutes leurs forces contre le copyleft et contre l’adoption de ces licences dans le monde de l’open source. L’idée est de prétendre aux développeurs open source que si leur logiciel peut être privatisé, alors elles, grands princes, pourront l’utiliser et, éventuellement, très éventuellement, engager le développeur ou lui payer quelques cacahouètes.
-
-La réalité est bien sûr aussi évidente qu’elle en a l’air : tant qu’elles peuvent ajouter des briques privatrices aux licences, ces monopoles peuvent continuer l’exploitation du bien commun que représentent les logiciels open source. Elles peuvent bénéficier d’une impressionnante quantité de travail gratuit ou très bon marché. 
-
-Le fait que ces monopoles morbides puissent continuer cette exploitation et soient même acclamés par les développeurs exploités illustre l’importance fondamentale de comprendre ce qu’est réellement une licence et des implications du choix d’une licence plutôt qu’une autre.
diff --git a/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md b/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ff6c34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# The importance of understanding licenses
+
+
+We often hear that programms or online creation are published under a license. What does it mean ? And why is that important ?
+
+To keep things simple, in our societiy, every exchange follows a certain contract, it can be implicit, but it exists. If one buy an apple at the market, the implicit contract is that after paying for it, the apple is his and he can do whatever he wants with it.
+
+For the material goods said "rivals", the selling contract often implies an ownership transfer of the good. There are often other clauses in the contract. As the warranties.
+
+Where things get tricky, is when the exchanged good is said "non-rival". Which means that the good can be copied or bought multiple times without any impact on the buyers. In our case, we typically talk of a software or numérique work (would it be a movie, book, music, ...). It became evident that numeric shopping doesn't grant us any ownership of the work we bought.
+
+It is important to signal that, for long, non rivality of works as music, book or movies was disguised by the fact that the support himself, was a rival good. If I buy a paper book, I'm the owner. But I still don't own the rights on its content ! Numeric support and Internet dissipated that confusion between work and support. 
+
+To regulate all this, buying a numeric work or a computer programm is, as every buy is subject to a contract which stipulates the exact rights and obligations that the buyer will receive. License is nothing but a contract pattern, a sort of standard contract model. This contract, as for a good part of our society, relies on the supposition that, as for a rival good, a non-rival good needs to have an owner. That is obviously arbitrary and I invite you to question that premise, which is all too often admitted as a law of nature. 
+
+It is important to signal that each transaction comes with its own contract. It is possible to give rights to a buyer and not to an other. It is in fact that principle that allows the "dual lincensing" practice.
+
+## Rights and obligations defined by the licence
+
+In our society, every work is, by default, under a copyright licence. Meaning that the buyer can't do anything else that consulting and using the work for its personal use. Any other use, share or modificatio is by default prohibited.
+
+On the opposite, exists the public domain. Works in the public domain aren't associated with any particular right : anybody can use, modify and redistribut it as he want.
+
+One of the major intellectual scam of the copyrights absolutists is to have made us believe that there was no other alternative between those two extremes. As we are either owner of the apple, or we aren't, the fiction wants that we are either owner of a work (of the copyright), or owner of nothing, just good enough to watch. It is obviously fake.
+
+If the license is a wall of obligations to which the buyer must submit, it is possible to only take some of its bricks.
+As example, on can grant all ownership rights  except the one of claiming the paternity of the work. The BSD, MIT or Creative Commons By licenses, for example, require to cite the orignal author. But we can still modify and redistribute.
+
+The CC By-ND licence, requires to cite the author, but does not allow modification. Redistribution, on the other hand, is allowed.
+
+An important thing to point out is that when redistributing an existing work, we can modify its license, but only if we add constraints (bricks). So I have the right to take an existing work under CC By license, modify it and then redistribute it under CC By-ND. However, it isn't allowed for me to take bricks et do the opposite. In every redistribution, the new license must be either equivalent, or more restrictive.
+
+The problem of this approach, it that everything will end up restricted because we can only restrain user rights ! It is by te way what happends in big companies as Google, Facebook or Apple that use thousands of open source programms and transform them in proprietary software. A real open source patrimony looting !
+
+## Copyleft, or prohibition on adding bricks
+
+That's where Richard Stallman idea is a genius one : by inventing the GPL lincense, Richard Stallman as a matter of fact invented the "no more bricks" brick. You can modify and redistribute a software under GPL license. But modification must also be under GPL.
+
+It's also the idea of the Share-Alike clause in Creative Commons. A published work under CC By-SA (As are my books published at PVH) can be modified, redistributed and even sold. The only condition is to still be under CC By-SA license or equivalent.
+
+The irony is that we designate by "copyleft" the licenses that prevent from adding bricks and si
+Ironically, "copyleft" refers to licenses that prevent the addition of bricks and thus the privatization of resources. They where presented as "contaminating" or even as "cancers" by Microsoft, Apple, Google or Facebook. Those companies now present themselves as big defenders of open source. But they fight with all their might against the copyleft and against the addoption of those licenses in the open source world. The idea is to pretend to open source developers that if their software can be privatized, then they, great princes, will be able to use it and, eventually, maybe, hire the programmer and pay him a few peanuts.
+
+The truth is as obvious as can be : while they can add privating bricks to licenses, those monopols can keep exploiting c
+La réalité est bien sûr aussi évidente qu’elle en a l’air : tant qu’elles peuvent ajouter des briques privatrices aux licences, these monopolies can continue to exploit the common good represented by open source software. They can beneficiate from an impressive amount of free or cheap workforce.
+
+The fact that those morbid monopolies can keep exploiting and are even praised by the exploited developers shows the fundamental importance to understand what really is a license and the implications of the choice of such a license instead of an other.
+
+## [â—„ Previous chapter](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/1_why_are_we_here.md) | [Next chapter â–º](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md b/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md
index 92a17e4..79bc032 100644
--- a/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md
+++ b/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Only a handful of developers were considering the strange idea that code should
 
 In 1976, Bill Gates wrote "An Open Letter to Hobbyists" where he claimed that developing software cost time, money and that people should not steal software.
 
-Reactions were mitigated with Apple running an ad to tell that they were providing free software with their computer and the community of programmers, amongst them Jim Warren, noting that it copying software make them more popular in the long term. He also noted that people were not trying to "steal" but that buying software was way harder than simply copying it from friends.
+Reactions were mitigated with Apple running an ad to tell that they were providing free software with their computer and the community of programmers, amongst them Jim Warren, noting that copying software made them more popular in the long run. He also noted that people were not trying to "steal" but that buying software was way harder than simply copying it from friends.
 
 This Open Letter to Hobbyists is an important landmark because it illustrates how common copying and sharing were. It also illustrates that a business oriented minority was trying to advertise a new ideology in which "sharing is stealing". Spoiler alert: they managed to make that ideology so successful that the "poor" Bill Gates became the richest man on earth only twenty years later and that, nowadays, lot of students and professor are afraid of sharing knowledge.
 
@@ -16,18 +16,19 @@ While the Open Letter to Hobbyists was quickly dismissed, time were changing. AT
 
 Oblivious to that trend, a programmer called Richard Stallman was happily hacking in the MIT artificial intelligence lab where he started in 1971. "Hacking" was the word they used at MIT to describe "solving a hard problem". The problem itself didn’t have to be serious. The spirit at the time was to make complex practical joke. Everything in life had to be considered as a problem to be solved with the most original solution. Sharing ideas was a strong part of that culture. As computer ressources were rare and expensive, it was seen as counter-productive to keep a computer sleeping. If a computer was locked in a room for the night, Richard Stallman and his fellow coworkers made it a mission to free it in order to run programs on it. Freeing computers involved lock picking, crawling in the ceilings. Having fun.
 
-Richard Stallman was a true mathematician genius. (TODO: the grant story) But he had a hard time with social interactions. He found his call in front of a computer. Not only was he good with computers, he also had lot of nice social interactions with fellow computer geeks. He was happy.
+Richard Stallman was a true mathematician genius. (TODO: the grant story) But he had a hard time with social interactions. He found his call in front of a computer. Not only was he good with computers, he also had lot of nice social interactions with fellow computer geeks. He was happy. Stallman was home at the MIT AI lab. What had started as a summer job for him was now some kind of family.
 
-TODO : the LISP machine story
+In the early 80's, the lab started working on the LISP machine, an optimized type of harware for LISP. LISP is a computer language that was considered as a more elegant and powerful language. The huge potential of this machine ended up by tearing the lab apart. Everything comes to an end. One by one, Richard’s coworkers left for two big companies. They were doing exactly the same job as before but, suddenly, they could not share it. Both companies were in competitions to improve the product.
 
-Everything comes to an end. One by one, Richard’s coworkers left for two big companies. They were doing exactly the same job as before but, suddenly, they could not share it. Both companies were in competitions to improve the product.
-
-Refusing to be hired to not share code, Richard started to implement all the features the companies developed without having access at their code. Alone, he managed to code as much as two dedicated teams.
+Refusing to be hired to not share code, Richard started to implement all the features the companies developed without having access at their code. Alone, working day and night, he managed to code as much as two dedicated teams.
 
 One day, the printer was replaced in the MIT department where Richard worked. Printers were (and still are) huge machines prone to being blocked. Richard had, long ago, modified the software of the printer to send a warning to the person requesting a print if the printer was blocked. As not everybody was working on the same story, this simple change prevented a lot of unnecessary walk through the MIT’s corridors.
 
-Richard knew that the Xerox company would not send him the sourcecode to allow modifying the new printer. But he know someone who worked on it and though he would simply ask him as he was visiting his university. Richard asked the source code and was expecting either a "yes, of course" or a "no". To his astonishment, he received a third answer:
+Richard knew that the Xerox company would not send him the sourcecode to allow modifying the new printer. But he knew someone who worked on it and though he would simply ask him as he was visiting his university. Richard asked the source code and was expecting either a "yes, of course" or a "no". To his astonishment, he received a third answer:
 
 "I can’t"
 
 At that point, Richard Stallman understood that even good hacker and programmer could be forced to not share their work through contracts and licenses.
+
+
+## [â—„ Previous chapter](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/2_the_importance_of_licenses.md) | [Next chapter â–º](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/4_licenses.md)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/syllabus/4_licenses.md b/syllabus/4_licenses.md
index 808433e..267e3a9 100644
--- a/syllabus/4_licenses.md
+++ b/syllabus/4_licenses.md
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ The 4 freedoms of Free Software are extremely important. If you don’t have tho
 
 The GPL not only provided those 4 freedoms. It also ensured that those freedoms would be preserved, by stating explicitely in the conditions of the contract: should the user redistribute the software to someone else, he should provide those same freedoms to that other person. This concept is named "copyleft", where the only restriction you have to agree to is… to not create any restrictions. You have all the freedoms of the software, except the freedom of taking away some of these freedoms from others. You cannot use a GPL code in a proprietary software. If you do, the proprietary software would automatically be "contaminated" and become GPL.
 
-Some license would soon appear. They would be grnting the access to Free Software but without guaranteeing the freedom that comes with it. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses. [TO-DO]
+Some license would soon appear. They would be granting the access to Free Software but without guaranteeing the freedom that comes with it. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses. [TO-DO]
 
 The word "free" should be understood as in "freedom", not as in "free beer". That’s why the french/spanish world "libre" is often used to clarify the meaning. FLOSS means : "Free and Libre Open Source Software".
 
@@ -56,3 +56,5 @@ It is important to note that nothing prevents anyone from selling free software.
 But "Free Software" was often confused with "Freeware", softwares that are proprietary but distributed freely (often as a limited version of a paying proprietary software). People building Free Software were looking for a clarification. 
 
 Some hackers managed to find the word "Open Source".
+
+## [â—„ Previous chapter](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/3_stallman_and_free_software.md) | [Next chapter â–º](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/5_opensource.md)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/syllabus/5_opensource.md b/syllabus/5_opensource.md
index 5ea113b..498ce55 100644
--- a/syllabus/5_opensource.md
+++ b/syllabus/5_opensource.md
@@ -6,6 +6,6 @@ From the start, Richard Stallman was really worried that the word "open source"
 
 In insight, he was perfectly right.
 
-Eric Raymond was famous for writing an essay called "The cathedral and the bazaar" in which he defended that software was so complex that you could not make it with only a few persons. That making it open source forced to write good software, that bugs would eventually be found, that people would contribute brilliand unexpected patches.
-
+Eric Raymond was famous for writing an essay called "The cathedral and the bazaar" in which he defended that software was so complex that you could not make it with only a few persons. That making it open source forced to write good software, that bugs would eventually be found, that people would contribute brilliant unexpected patches.
 
+## [â—„ Previous chapter](https://forge.uclouvain.be/ldricot/lingi2401/-/blob/master/syllabus/4_licenses.md)
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
GitLab