Open-source model

Open source computer software is nominally owned by one individual or entity, and is licensed out according to an open source license; the license provides permission to use the software, as well as the freedom to use and modify the source code, so that the software can then be further developed by whomever is interested. The term open source in common usage may also refer to any software with publicly available source code.

In the strict definition, the term "open source" is distinct from "free software," and it should only be applied to software that meets the terms of the Open Source Definition (see also the Free Software Foundation's Free software definition). The decision to adopt the term "open source" was based partly on the confusion caused by the dual meaning of the word "free"; the FSF intended the word to mean "free speech, not free beer," but nevertheless, free software came to be associated with zero-cost, and even a hostitility towards intellectual property rights, a problem which was exacerbated by the fact that a great deal of it is, in fact, free of charge, and is not owned by any individual or organization. It was hoped that the usage of the newer term "open source" would eliminate such ambiguity.

The Free Software Definition is more restrictive than the Open Source Definition; as a consequence of this, free software is open source, but open source software may or may not be "free." In practice, the amount of software released under a license that meets the open source definition, but which the FSF does not regard as free software, is quite small. For instance, software distributed under the GPL is free, and those distributed under the BSD licenses are open source. Confusion about the distinctions between free and open source software is the source of some misunderstanding, particularly in the mass media, where the two are often applied interchangeably.

Adherents of the open source development methodology claim that it is superior in a number of ways to the closed source method. Stability, reliability, and security are frequently cited as reasons to support open source. One successful application of the open source model is the Linux operating system, which is renowned for its stability and security characteristics. Among the works that explore and justify open source development is a series of works by Eric S. Raymond which includes The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere.

The open source movement is a large movement of programmers and other computer users to give easy access to computer software. It grew out of the Free software movement, and the line between the two is somewhat blurry. Mostly, the Free software movement is based upon political and philosophical ideals (sometimes referred as hacker culture), while open source proponents tend to focus on rather pragmatic matters. Both groups assert that this more open style of licensing allows for a superior software development process, and therefore that pursuing it is in line with rational self-interest.

Open source advocates point out that as of the early 2000s, at least 90 percent of computer programmers are employed not to produce software for direct sale, but rather to design and customize software for other purposes, such as in-house applications. According to advocates, this statistic implies that the value of software lies primarily in its usefulness to the developer or developing organization, rather than in its potential sale value, and that consequently there is no compelling economical reason to keep source code secret from competitors.

When talking about code, one cannot avoid mentioning Open Source. That is, the source code for the software is available along with the object code (or in more simple words, the program itself). Anyone can take this code and use it as he wishes. One can analyze it, rewrite it and redistribute it, without having to ask the permission of anyone else. This extreme flexibility is guaranteed by a contract (e.g. the GNU Public License (Free Software Foundation 2001)), in which is stated that the program is protected by copyright, but licenses to use the program are given to everybody.

The concept of Open Source has two complementary sides. From one side, it tries to widen the public domain, by granting licenses to everybody. From the other side, open source constrains the power of the government. Remember section 5.2, in which I explained that the government can regulate through architecture, or code, in computer terminology. In the case of Open Source however, we can say that the "(g)overnment can demand, (the) government can threaten, but when the target of its regulation is plastic, it cannot rely on its target remaining as it wants" (Lessig 1999, 107). This means that the government cannot impose standards (like built-in copyright protection) that users do not like, as the users themselves control the code and they immediately would remove possible constraints. However, this is not an absolute claim. If the government threatens severe punishments for not building in this or that type of constraints, it can control even Open Source in a certain way (Lessig 1999, 108). [1]

People

Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Linus Torvalds (The creator of Linux), Paul Vixie, Alan Cox
Richard Stallman is a central figure in the rival (but cooperative) free software movement, which has a significantly different philosophical basis; Stallman does not want his name associated with the term open source.