Article for comment

Hi, all,

Wrote this up for a publication.  Thought it might be useful to some folks,
so I'm posting it here.  Please do send in your comments.  Thanks.

--Dom



Why You Should Care About Open Source

To many people, open source is synonymous with free software.  Therein lies
the trouble.  While the two sometimes coincide, it is not always the case.
Sometimes, you have free software that is not open source; and sometimes,
you have open source software that is not free.

Confused?  Let's try to clear things up, starting with the word "free."
There are two meanings to "free" when referring to software.  The first, and
probably the more common, refers to zero-cost.  Appropriately, this is the
term that applies to freeware, whatever platform they may run on.  The
second meaning is less common and relates to freedom.

Ah, but freedom to do what? And why do we need this in the first place?

Most software today is governed by licenses that permit the user to do
certain things while restricting others.  So, for example, a Microsoft
Windows license will legally let you run the operating system on only one
computer, and not on another.  It does not allow you to give it away to
another person nor to take it apart and study what makes it work from the
inside.

In contrast, an open source license, as defined by the Open Source
Consortium, will allow you four fundamental freedoms: (1) the freedom to run
the program for any purpose; (2) the freedom to study the program; (3) the
freedom to improve the program; and (4) the freedom to distribute the
program. The human-readable source code is fundamental to the last three
freedoms, and therefore, access to it is a precondition for open source
software.  Hence, the term "open source."

Now, some of you might exclaim: "What does that have to do with me?  I'm not
a programmer.  I just want to use nice software that's free or available at
a reasonable price."

It might help if we take a step back and tackle it by way of a commonplace
analogy: cookies.  Not the kind that goes into your web browser, but the
kind that's yummy and gets all crumbly when you eat it.

Let's say that in the course of your gastronomical experiments, you've hit
upon a wonderful new recipe for a cookie.  It's so good that everyone who's
tasted it wants more.  So what do you do?  You have two options before you.

One: you could keep the cookie recipe a secret, bake the cookies yourself,
sell your product, and make a nice profit out of your labors.  You can price
the cookies as high as you want because no one else is able to make them
quite like you do.

Or two: you could give out the cookie recipe so that other people can bake
their own cookies.  You can still sell your cookies, but now other people
can even sell them in competition to you.  They are free to make
improvements on your recipe with the precondition that they also give away
those improved recipes.  In turn, you can also make and sell cookies based
on these recipe variations.

Which option is right and which option is wrong?  Well, neither, really.
You're free to do as you choose, depending on the circumstances.

If you take the first path, you will be able to sell more cookies, and
that's a good thing.  On the downside, there isn't going to be as much
variety on the market and after a while your recipe could get, well, stale.
And who's to say that somewhere down the line there won't be someone else
who can match your cookie recipe?

If you take the second path, you won't get to sell as much as when you had a
monopoly, and that might not be so good for you financially.  But there'll
be more cookie recipes out in the market, some of which may be even better
than your original and which you can bake for yourself.  And overall, the
prices of cookies will be lower because many more people can make them (and
you might even choose to buy from someone else who can bake them better).

The analogies should be obvious enough: cookies stand for software, and the
cookie recipe is the source code.  While it's alright to keep the source
code for yourself -- and there may be good reason for doing so --  it opens
up a whole avenue of wonderful possibilities if you open it up.

Now, put yourself in another role.  Say that you don't bake cookies
yourself, but you do like to eat them.  As a dedicated cookie connoisseur,
Which of the two situations above do you think would be better for you?
Again, it's alright to buy from someone with a secret recipe, wouldn't it be
better to create an environment where you get more variety and at lower
prices?

The same analogy can hold for software as well.  This is the promise that
open source presents: more variety, and at more affordable prices.

So you see, that's why, even if you're not a developer, open source ought to
mean something to you.  And even if you are just a user, try to find some
means of contributing to open source: using the software, reporting bugs,
and getting other people to use it.

_________________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbie Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph