Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better.

-Albert Camus (1913-1960) French novelist, essayist and dramatist.

If you lookup Open Source and Free Software on the Internet, you will notice that although they seem to be similar, they are different ideologies. To the layperson it really does not matter much, but if I were to try to explain, it will be like me trying to articulate the differences between the various religions. In a nutshell, the basic fundamentals remain the same, although there are some idealogical differences.

More often than not, Linux is the first thing that comes to mind when one says Open Source. But the purists believe that Linux is Free Software and is very different from Open Source. One can write volumes describing each of them and defining the differences between the two. But in the interest of one's time, and the fact that many of us have a day job, a quick definition is given below.

The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you - as defined originally by the Free Software Foundation in February 1996 (http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt)

Open source software is computer software for which the human-readable source code is made available under a copyright license (or arrangement such as the public domain) that meets the Open source Definition. This permits users to use, change, and improve he software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified form. It is often developed in a public, collaborative manner.

A little History

Back in January 1998, when the Internet was getting interesting, Netscape Communications Corporation (remember the browser Netscape Navigator?) decided to release the source code of their browser. This was the time when browsers were not free and, surprisingly, Microsoft gave away its Internet Explorer. What's more ironic than Microsoft actually giving away software? Well, this was because Netscape Navigator has a strong hold on browsers and Microsoft was trying to break into that market.

In February 1998, Open Source Initiative (OSI) was formed by some of the people who attended the session in January 1998 when Netscape decided to release their source code. OSI suggested the use of the label Open Source to eliminate any ambiguity that Free might suggest. OSI had lofty goals and tried to bring other businesses into the Open Source fold, but without a lot of success at that time.

Malls and Flea Markets

Eris S Raymond (one of the earliest pioneers and evangelists of Open Source) suggests in his 1997 essay titled The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html), how the Open Source Model can be used to create software. He says that the traditional methods of development of software is like building a Cathedral. "carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation". He says a better way of creating software is like building a market or bazaar, which he described as "a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches".

To put his essay into perspective, imagine the building of a mall. It is a very process oriented creation. You have many roles, each role is well defined and executed according to certain regulations laid down by various bodies. And then you don't want to have too many Architects designing the mall, we all know what happens where are too many cooks. Fred P. Brooks in his book The Mythical Man-Month advocates this sort of model.

Imagine, on the other hand, the weekend flea market. A whole lot of people from different walks of life and different areas converge at a particular time and in almost no time at all, brisk business is being done. An architect used to designing malls, might scoff at the flea market. But even he will appreciate the fact that complete strangers work together in setting up a organized set of trading areas in a very short period of time. Yes, sometimes there are disputes and rows, but then they are usually resolved in a reasonable amount of time so as not to affect the overall business of each trader.

Open Source believes in a few things, such as

* Everybody will contribute to the development, even the users. This clearly places a lot of responsibility on us, the users, to report our difficulties using it.

* Releases will be quick, early and often. This gives us the confidence that our problemsresolved  will be fairly  quickly.

* Integrate. Open Source solutions frequently work well with each other more often than not.

* Multiple versions will be available. For those who wish stability, stable version will be useful. Other adventurous types can try out the unstable versions and trade stability for newer features. You can have the cake and eat it too.

* Modular structure to be maintained for quicker, parallel development.

Would you happily buy a house if the builder will not give you the floor plan? Would it not be a terrible experience to just pay and pray that you will like it? Why then do we accept these restrictions when it comes to software applications? Is it the lack of awareness of available FLOSS alternatives?

Next time: Open Source vs Closed Source, why it matters?

Venkat Mangudi is an Open Source Evangelist and Strategy Consultant based in Bangalore.  After having worked across Europe, Asia and the US, Venkat returned home to set up a consulting firm called quite unimaginatively, Venkat Mangudi Consulting (www.venkatmangudi.com). He can be reached at venkat@ venkatmangudi.com.

Related Items:

---

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.