An explanation of the term

It is helpful to start with an understanding of where the term “open source” comes from. When a programmer writes software code, he does so in computer languages (there are many). This code, the source code, is then converted (by something known as a compiler) into what is called binary. Binary is a language intelligible to computers but not to humans.

Microsoft and many other companies only release the binary version of Windows, Word and their other software programs. They fiercely protect the original source code. The consequence is that users are not free to modify the program or to further distribute it.

By contrast Linux, Apache, Mozilla and other open source organisations, are committed to making available the source code for their software and to ensuring, through their license, that it remains freely available. In this sense, the source code is “open”.

A brief history

The origins of Open Source are commonly traced back to the software developer community that evolved around the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and other educational establishments during the 1960s and 1970s. In those early days, all software was shared freely amongst the academics and enthusiasts who wrote it; there was no concept of proprietary software, only hardware. However, this changed as people realised its value and began to claim ownership over software, refusing to share the source code. Richard Stallman, an MIT hacker of the old school, resented this. A turning point came for him when he was denied access to developments of software that he had naively given to a commercial organisation. He set up the Free Software Foundation (FSF), aiming to preserve an environment in which benefits compound through cooperation in software development.

In Stallman’s words “a program is free software for you, a particular user, if:

Stallman devised a new form of license, the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL protects the rights of the original author of the code while giving the user all the freedoms mentioned above. The only restriction imposed by the GPL is that the user must preserve the license, and pass on the same rights, unimpaired, when the software is sold or given away to other users, including access to the source code, and to any changes that have been made to it Any software that incorporates code that has been released under the GPL must also be released under the GPL (because of this characteristic, the GPL has been called “viral” in nature). The software can be used for any purpose the user pleases, and can be packaged and resold, or given away free. Stallman termed this, wryly, copyleft.

Other programmers began to offer help to Stallman, sharing code and offering fixes for bugs. A number of applications were developed. By the beginning of the 1990s, all that was missing was an operating system.

At the same time (1991) a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds started to write an operating system kernel, for fun. He named it Linux and shared it on-line. The timing was propitious, coinciding with the birth of the World Wide Web and Linux, which is licensed under the GPL, rapidly gained a community of developers from all around the world. Linux has been incredibly successful, proving to be more reliable, resilient and adaptable than its proprietary competitors.

As of December 2006, over 70% of the world’s top 500 supercomputers were running Linux as their core operating system. Linux is also found in print servers, router devices and many other devices.

Commercial organisations are quick to pick up something that works so well. When Lehman Brothers moved to Linux they claimed “a 50 percent improvement in cost and about a 20 percent improvement in performance” . Morgan Stanley claimed to have achieved a 13-fold increase in performance after switching its equity options calculator from Solaris (Unix) to Linux in November 2001. Another example is Peugeot/Citroen, who announced in 2007 that it is deploying 20,000 Linux desktops.

Other open source software has also been widely adopted, notably Apache which holds over 60 per cent of the world’s web server market and Mozilla Firefox which has captured a significant and growing share of the world’s browser market, competing against Internet Explorer. 56% of those people finding their way to the 40 Fires site use Firefox, compared to 25% using Internet Explorer.

It doesn’t stop there. There are many, many other open source software development projects on-going around the world. Sourceforge.net, the leading hosting company for such projects, currently hosts upwards of 100,000 separate projects of varying complexity.

In recent times as open source has become more well-known, it has become common to name all sorts of projects as “Open Source” when they are not. It is not a protected expression.

Some would say that 40 Fires is not open source since the term can only be applied to software, and hardware is very different. Besides we won’t be using an existing license but making up one of our own. However we believe that in spirit we are an open source project – we have the same aims of sharing information for the benefit of all.

Characteristics of OS projects

Open source projects tend to attract a broad and diverse group of contributors to their talent pool. There is a great diversity of ideas, which means that solutions are found that would not often be spotted in a more closed community.

OS organisations have a flat structure. They are true meritocracies, where someone’s work is rated purely on its usefulness. This contrasts with hierarchies, where decisions are often heavily influenced by political factors - such as because a senior manager favours it, or because an investor wants it (or is perceived to want it). For example, when Linus Torvalds at an early stage decided not to adopt a so-called “microkernel” approach, he had complete freedom to do so. By contrast, many in the research community were wasting time pursuing the fashionable microkernel approach mainly (in Linus’ view at least) because of their desire to receive more dollars for research.

There is very little incentive in the OS world to produce multiple solutions (unlike with ordinary products where you find “cheap”, “mid” and “upmarket” versions); the best solution tends to dominate and drive the others out. The result is a product that is robust and is more scalable, versatile and flexible than its competitors.

The most successful open source projects are truly owned by the community. Of course there is huge variation in the amount of input made by contributors - some may be engaged full-time in the project and others may make one contribution per year. But key decisions are made in a participatory manner. If at any time the community feels that an individual or a small group are trying to take control, there will be problems.

In many ways the development process in an open source world mirrors nature - there is no or minimal hierarchy, and much trial and error along the way to finding the ideal solution for the particular environment.

Motivation

A question often asked is why people contribute their time for free. There is no easy answer; people’s motivations are complex. Some individuals simply enjoy programming, and contributing to these projects gives them an outlet for this activity. Some people are driven by a need for recognition, which they get if they make a significant contribution to a well-known project.

For many, contributing to an open source project is a refreshing contrast t the hierarchical corporate environment – they are free to offer up the best solution, and choices are made based on what is best, not on what is politically possible. This has obvious appeal to designers.

Commercial organisations such as IBM and Red Hat contribute to open source projects too (see the book “The Wealth of Networks” by Yochai Benkler for more about IBM’s success with open source). In fact these organisations and many others have achieved great success through this strategy. They have realised that they can receive a far more reliable and steady source of income by providing services to users of software than would be possible by selling the software itself. By contributing to the development of the OS software, they not only improve the service to the customer but they also gain expertise in the application of the software, and this expertise is of great value to their clients. They also gain from contributions made by their rivals.

Creative Commons  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License