Richard talks about "open source" from a legal point of view, which seems appropriate as he was Counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center, and is now Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel at Red Hat.
The most important part of his post is this:
To me, then, open source is not a development methodology, let alone a distillation of broadly-applicable principles seen as underlying such a methodology. Rather, open source is a specific legal model of property rights transfer. To put it differently, open source is about freedom to use, modify, and share creative material that could otherwise be severely legally restricted by the author. (Source code availability is relevant because otherwise the freedom of modification would be practically impossible to exercise.)Read his article for yourself. What do you think?