Software Philosophy: Consider the (Open) Source

Philosophy, not a subject that is normally associated with software, is actually major component of the current revolution in software.

Proprietary Model

Traditionally, the philosophy of commercial software development was profit based. A company creates a new software product comprised of source code that has been compiled into a binary. It then sells the binary on some type of media shrink wrapped in a colorful box with a manual on a shelf at a major retailer. The company keeps the source code, never to be shown to the user. This is known as the proprietary model. It works well due to the relative unfamiliarity of the average consumer or user. The consumer is dependent on the producer for bug fixes support and updates. Most software purchased today is still made using the proprietary model.

Free Software

The philosophy of free software can be summed up in one word, FREEDOM. After a particularly frustrating battle with a printer and a UNIX system, one hacker, Richard Stallman started thinking about a better way. He eventually set about to design a system that gave the user freedom to modify and share the code underlying the system. He has since devoted his life to this cause. He created the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to help achieve his goals and various Licenses GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) to enforce his ideals. He then set about to replace the Unix Operating System with a "Free" replacement, building it one piece at a time. He started with the tools required to build the system, a text editor, a compiler and other various utilities and applications as needed. He was quickly joined by others who shared his ideals and contributed their own applications. These applications proved popular to engineers and developers using a UNIX system and since you were free to modify the code, ports were made to other operating systems and hardware architectures. Pretty soon the GNU (GNU is Not Unix) applications were popping up at universities and corporations everywhere.

Although the GNU packages themselves proved popular at corporations, the ideals that spawned them did not. Only after the biggest piece of the GNU puzzle, the Kernel, was completed by a young Finnish university student and released under the GPL, did the big boys sit up and take notice. Seemingly out of nowhere new companies were formed combing the new LINUX (Linux is Not Unix) kernel and GNU applications as a product and began offering commercial support for the new system. Those companies went public and were instant successes. But still the image of free software carried with it a negative image of hippies and communes which was a bit too much for most corporate executives to swallow.

Open Source

Several people involved in the new darlings of wall street companies were of the opinion that the term "Free Software" was hurting the cause and quite possibly sales. They began using a new term "Open Source", focusing instead on the superiority of the development model where many people have access to the source code and contribute back changes and bug fixes. This idea was best described by Eric Raymond in his book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." This idea was made real with the establishment of the Open Source Initiative, a standards body that approves new open source licenses.

Division

What is the difference? At first glance there appears to be little difference between Open Source and Free Software. By definition Free Software is Open Source. It's source code is freely available and free to modify and use. However not all Open Source software is Free Software. To have that description it must guarantee the freedoms defined in the Philosophy of Free Software as described by the Free Software Foundation at fsf.org. and embodied most notably by the GPL.

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The Open Source Definition is similar but without all the freedom verbiage instead choosing words like "must allow" and "shall not restrict". This has had the desired effect of making Open Source more palatable to business. It has also had an unwanted side effect, bringing in new users and developers to Free Software who do not understand the motivation and goals of the Free Software movement. If this class of user/developer is only interested in the practical benefits of open source then any proprietary software that offers more benefits will pull them back out.

In Stallman's view the freedoms inherent in Free Software far outweigh the practical benefits. A proprietary software program with better features is a good candidate for a free software replacement. This view at times puts him at odds with large portions of the community that he started.

Reunification

The divide between the two camps can make it difficult to talk about software developed under the new philosophies as a whole. Often projects have developers firmly entrenched in both camps. A new term was coined to unify them. Free / Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) makes no distinction about the motivation of its developers, but tries to describe the combined efforts of all.

Sorry class, but that is all the time we have for today. There will be a pop quiz on Friday. I hope you were all taking notes.

Additional Reading material on Open Source and Free Software can be found on the web at:
http://www.fsf.org
http://opensource.org
http://www.gnu.org

And in the Books

Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Steven Raymond
Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity