Jump to content

Open-source model: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot (talk | contribs)
1,596,818 edits
Reverting possible vandalism by Special:Contributions/142.177.78.210 to version by 124.43.54.217. If this is a mistake, report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (86535) (Bot)
Undid revision 173823005 by ClueBot (talk) - false positive - content moved to talk:open content not deleted
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Cleanup-restructure|date=April 2007}}
{{Cleanup-restructure|date=April 2007}}


'''Open source''' is a set of principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge. The term is most commonly applied to the [[source code]] of [[software]] that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent [[intellectual property]] restrictions. This allows [[user generated content|users to create software content]] through incremental individual effort or through [[collaboration]].
'''Open source''' is a set of principles and practices that its advocates claim promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge, overwhelmingly understood as the list of same created by [[Bruce Perens]] and [[Eric Raymond]] and maintained by the [[Open Source Initiative]].


== Deliberate spread of the term ==
The open source model of operation can be extended to [[open source culture]] in [[decision making]], which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.<ref>[[Eric S. Raymond|Raymond, Eric S.]] ''[[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]]''. ed 3.0. 2000.</ref> Open source culture is one where collective [[decisions]] or [[fixation]]s are shared during development and made generally available to all, as done in [[Wikipedia]]. This collective approach moderates [[ethical]] concerns over a "conflict of roles" or [[conflict of interest]]. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical [[Strategy|strategic]] element of their [[business operations|operations]].


While the term applied originally only to [[source code]] of [[software]], it is often misapplied to other areas which have different and competing principles, which overlap only partially. ''See [[open source (journalism)]] for the only other such definition in widespread use.''
==History==
{{main|Open Source history}}


Advocates of the open source principles make constant and frequent efforts to disavow, deny, hide or limit the difference between the principles they advocate and those of the [[software libre]] and [[open content]] movements which demonstrably defy and deny several of the OSI principles. They have also often attempted to define vague terms like [[open source politics]], [[open source culture]] and even to redefine [[open source (journalism)]] as '''open source journalism''', also known as [[blogging]].
Very similar to [[open standards]], researchers with access to the [[Advanced Research Projects Agency Network]] (ARPANET) used a process called [[Request for Comments]] to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960's collaborative process led to the birth of the [[Internet]] in 1969. There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its [[operating system]]s in the 1960s and the [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software.


Opponents of the spread of the label "open source", including [[Richard Stallman]], argue that the requirements and restrictions ensure the continuation of the effort, and resist attempts to redefine the labels. He argues also that most supporters of open source are actually supporters of much more equitable agreements and support re-integration of derived works and that most contributors do not intend to release their work to others who can extend it, hide the extensions, patent those very extensions, and demand royalties or restrict the use of all other users. All while not violating the open source principles with respect to the initial code they acquired.
The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label "open source" came out of a strategy session<ref name=osihistory>[http://www.opensource.org/history History of the OSI]. [[Open Source Initiative]]. 2006.</ref> held at [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]], [[California]], in reaction to [[Netscape Communications Corporation|Netscape]]'s January 1998 announcement of a source code release for [[Netscape Navigator|Navigator]]. The group of individuals at the session included [[Christine Peterson]] who suggested "open source", [[Todd Anderson]], [[Larry Augustin]], [[Jon "maddog" Hall|Jon Hall]], [[Sam Ockman]], and [[Eric S. Raymond]]. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term [[free software]]. [[Netscape]] licensed and released its code as open source under the [[Netscape Public License]] and subsequently under the [[Mozilla Public License]].<ref name="Muffatto000">{{cite book
| title = Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
| first = Moreno
| last = Muffatto
| publisher = Imperial College Press
| year = 2006
| id = 1860946658
}}</ref>


== Includes free software, intersects with open content, used by consortia ==
The term "open source" has been used previously (as early as 1987) with a much wider definition<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19990507233127/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar-1.html</ref><ref>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/browse_thread/thread/ffaf7ac7dcd3f0c2/0243ee9294bdc300?lnk=st&q=&rnum=11#0243ee9294bdc300</ref> and is still used in that wider meaning by many people who do not necessarily accept the [[Open Source Initiative]]'s more limited definition of the term.


Perens and Raymond themselves are far clearer and more exact and honest about what constitutes open source licensing, and what does not. Under their definitions, [[free software]] is clearly a type of open source, and most [[consortium]] efforts like [[Java]] and [[W3]] make use of open source licenses. The [[open content]] movement intersects with the open source movement but supports licenses such as [[CC-by-nc-sa]] that clearly and explicitly and deliberately violate Perens' and Raymond's principles.
The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher [[Tim O'Reilly]]. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit",<ref name=opensourcesummit>[http://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html Open Source Summit] Linux Gazette. 1998.</ref> the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including [[Linus Torvalds]], [[Larry Wall]], [[Brian Behlendorf]], [[Eric Allman]], [[Guido van Rossum]], [[Michael Tiemann]], [[Paul Vixie]], [[Jamie Zawinski]] of [[Netscape]], and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone is widely seen as the birth of the [[Open Source Initiative]].{{Fact|date=August 2007}}


Persons unfamiliar with the detailed legal distinctions between the various movements above are usually best advised to use more specific terms describing the actual characteristics of the movement. Better terms, such as [[mass peer review]] or [[social software]] or [[open politics]] or [[consensus decision making]], exist to describe specific types of use or theories. The term [[open source culture]] can be used to describe the most general aspects of the model, but "'''open source'''" is (according to the principles) a way to describe source code that the public can read, and nothing else. [[Mass peer review]] is accordingly implied, but none of the social, political, legal or other attributes are implied - for instance [[transparency]] of business deals is not included.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted [[Debian]]'s Free Software Guidelines to make the [[Open Source Definition]].<ref>[[Bruce Perens|Perens, Bruce]]. [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution]. [[O'Reilly Media]]. 1999.</ref>
{{Wikibooks|FLOSS Concept Booklet}}
Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity between the mere availability of the source versus the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software ([[FOSS]]), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ([[FLOSS]]), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge.


==Society and culture==
== consensus, FLOSS and share-alike ==
{{unreferencedsec|date=May 2007}}


Since dissenting users can create their own versions of any open source software (if they can convince someone to voluntarily release it for redistribution) it can reasonably be said that it evolves by [[consensus]]. However there is little use of [[consensus decision making]] methods among open source developers, and none is required by the license.
'''Open source culture''' is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content. Examples include [[collage]], [[found footage]] film, [[music]], and [[appropriation art]]. Open source culture is one in which [[fixation]]s are made generally available. Participants in the culture can modify those products and redistribute them back into the community or other organizations. Informing and inspiring the open source movement are the African call-and-response traditions, [[Jazz]] and the free dance movements which emerged in the 20th Century. Late 20th Century open source strategies include [[Fluxus]], web jams, Wigglism and the international [[Hip Hop]] culture.


Lawyers, taking their cue from [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Creative Commons]], prefer the legally exact term [[share-alike]] to describe the types of restrictions and guarantees that [[free software]] and [[open content]] require that open source does not. Open source as a movement is agnostic about sharing as it does not compel any sharing or put conditions on sharing of improvements, nor prevent actions that prevent future sharing.
The rise of open-source culture in the 20th century resulted from a growing tension between creative practices that involve appropriation, and therefore require access to content that is often [[copyright]]ed, and increasingly restrictive intellectual property laws and policies governing access to copyrighted content. The two main ways in which intellectual property laws became more restrictive in the 20th century were extensions to the term of copyright (particularly in the [[United States]]) and penalties, such as those articulated in the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA), placed on attempts to circumvent anti-piracy technologies.


''The term [[FLOSS]] has evolved to describe the technical attributes of the movement and its processes, without getting into the legal details above.''
Although artistic appropriation is often permitted under [[fair use]] doctrines, the complexity and ambiguity of these doctrines creates an atmosphere of uncertainty among cultural practitioners. Also, the protective actions of copyright owners create what some call a "[[chilling effect]]" among cultural practitioners.


== Perens' principles ==
In the late 20th century, cultural practitioners began to adopt the intellectual property licensing techniques of [[free software]] and [[open-source software]] to make their work more freely available to others, including the [[Creative Commons]].


The idea of an "open source" culture runs parallel to "[[Free Culture movement|Free Culture]]," but is substantively different. ''Free culture'' is a term derived from the [[free software movement]], and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of OSC maintain that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect cultural producers. Yet they propose a more nuanced position than corporations have traditionally sought. Instead of seeing intellectual property law as an expression of instrumental rules intended to uphold either natural rights or desirable outcomes, an argument for OSC takes into account diverse goods (as in "the Good life") and ends.


''Please list them here from a reliable source that is current - there are many bad copies.''
One way of achieving the goal of making the fixations of cultural work generally available is to maximally utilize technology and [[digital media]]. As predicted by [[Moore's law]], the cost of digital media and storage plummeted in the late [[20th Century]]. Consequently, the [[marginal cost]] of digitally duplicating anything capable of being transmitted via digital media dropped to near zero. Combined with an explosive growth in [[personal computer]] and technology ownership, the result is an increase in general population's access to digital media. This phenomenon facilitated growth in open source culture because it allowed for rapid and inexpensive duplication and distribution of culture. Where the access to the majority of culture produced prior to the advent of digital media was limited by other constraints of proprietary and potentially "open" mediums, digital media is the latest technology with the potential to increase access to cultural products. Artists and users who choose to distribute their work digitally face none of the physical limitations that traditional cultural producers have been typically faced with. Accordingly, the audience of an open source culture faces little physical cost in acquiring digital media.


Under Perens' definition, open source describes a broad general type of [[software license]] that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent [[copyright]] restrictions. The principles at stated say absolutely nothing about [[trademark]] or [[patent]] use and require absolutely no cooperation to ensure that any common [[audit]] or [[release]] regime applies to any derived works. It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it may put no restrictions on either the use nor redistribution nor the organization or user whatsoever.
Open source culture started as an idea without a name many years before the Internet. [[Richard Stallman]] codified the concept with the creation of the [[Free Software Foundation]]. However, even before Stallman and the Internet, as the public begain to communicate through [[Bulletin Board Systems]] (BBS) like [[FidoNet]], places like Sourcery Systems BBS where dedicated to providing source code to [[Public Domain]], [[Shareware]] and [[Freeware]] programs.


It forbids, in principle, to guarantee continued access to derived works even by the major original contributors. In contrast to [[free software]] or [[open content]] licenses, which are often confused with '''open source''' but have much more rigorous rules and conventions, open source deliberately errs in favour of allowing any use by any party whatsoever, and offers few or no means or recourses to prevent a [[free rider]] situation or deal with proliferation of bad copies that misled end users.
Essentially born out of a desire for increased general access to digital media, [[Internet|the Internet]] is open source culture's most valuable asset. It is questionable whether the goals of an open source culture could be achieved without the Internet. The global network not only fosters an environment where culture can be generally accessible, but also allows for easy and inexpensive redistribution of culture back into various communities. Some reasons for this are as follows.


Perhaps because of this flexibility, which facilitates large commercial users and vendors, the most successful applications of open source have been in [[consortium]]. These use other means such as [[trademark]]s to control bad copies and require specific performance guarantees from consortium members to assure re-integration of improvements. Accordingly they do not need potentially conflicting clauses in licenses.
First, the Internet allows even greater access to inexpensive digital media and storage. Instead of users being limited to their own facilities and resources, they are granted access to a vast network of facilities and resources, some for free. Sites such as [[Archive.org]] offer up free web space for anyone willing to license their work under a [[Creative Commons]] license. The resulting cultural product is then available to download for free (generally accessible) to anyone with an Internet connection.


The loose definition has led to a proliferation of licenses that can claim to be open source but which would not satisfy the [[share alike]] provision that [[free software]] and [[open content]] licenses require. A very common license, the [[Creative Commons]] [[CC-by-nc-sa]], requires a commercial user to acquire a separate license for for-profit use. This is explicitly against the open source principles, as it discriminates against a type of use or user. However, the requirement imposed by [[free software]] to reliably redistribute derived works, does not violate these principles. Accordingly, free software and consortium licenses are a type of open source, but open content isn't insofar as it allows such restrictions. ''Similar arguments have often been made about the [[GFDL]] used in [[Wikipedia:itself]].''
Second, users are granted unprecedented access to each other. Older analog technologies such as the [[telephone]] or [[television]] have limitations on the kind of interaction users can have. In the case of television there is little, if any interaction between users participating on the network. And in the case of the telephone, users rarely interact with any more than a couple of their known peers. On the Internet, however, users have the potential to access and meet millions of their peers. This aspect of the Internet facilitates the modification of culture as users are able to collaborate and communicate with each other across international and cultural boundaries. The speed in which digital media travels on the Internet in turn facilitates the redistribution of culture.


== non-software use ==
Through various technologies such as [[peer-to-peer]] networks and [[blogs]], cultural producers can take advantage of vast [[social networks]] in order to distribute their products. As opposed to traditional media distribution, redistributing digital media on the Internet can be virtually costless. Technologies such as [[BitTorrent]] and [[Gnutella]] take advantage of various characteristics of the Internet protocol ([[TCP/IP]]) in an attempt to totally decentralize file distribution.


For forms of [[user generated content]] other than software, the [[open content]] movement has defined different principles and most supporters of that movement believe in some form of restriction of use and requirement to collaborate or at least reliably credit those individuals whose work is in use. Accordingly, the use of the term open source to describe anything but software is misleading.
===Government===
* [[Open source government]] — '''primarily''' refers to use of open source software technologies in traditional government organizations and government operations such as voting.
* [[Open politics]] (sometimes known as ''Open source politics'') — is a term used to describe a political process that uses Internet technologies such as blogs, email and polling to provide for a rapid feedback mechanism between political organizations and their supporters. There is also an alternative conception of the term ''Open source politics'' which relates to the development of public policy under a set of rules and processes similar to the Open Source Software movement.
* [[Open source governance]] — is similar to open source politics, but it applies more to the democratic process and promotes the freedom of information.


This "culture" or [[ideology]] takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.<ref>[[Eric S. Raymond|Raymond, Eric S.]] ''[[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]]''. ed 3.0. 2000.</ref>
===Ethics===
Open Source ethics is split into two strands:
* ''Open Source Ethics as an Ethical School'' - Charles Ess and David Berry are researching whether ethics can learn anything from an open source approach. Ess famously even defined the AoIR Research Guidelines as an example of open source ethics.<ref>[http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry2.pdf Berry (2004) Internet Ethics: Privacy, Ethics and Alienation - An Open Source Approach.] (PDF file)</ref>
* ''Open Source Ethics as a Professional Body of Rules'' - This is based principally on the computer ethics school, studying the questions of ethics and professionalism in the computer industry in general and software development in particular.<ref>[http://springerlink.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=hf0bld3qlk0unn8f8x2m&referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,14,33;linkingpublicationresults,1:100262,1#ContactOfAuthor1 El-Emam, K (2001). Ethics and Open Source. Empirical Software Engineering 6(4).]</ref>


Advocates of the open source principles often point to [[Wikipedia]] as an example, but Wikipedia has in fact often restricted certain types of use or user, and the [[GFDL]] license it uses makes specific requirements of all users that technically violate the open source principles.
===Media===
[[Open source journalism]] — referred to the standard journalistic techniques of news gathering and fact checking, and reflected a similar term that was in use from 1992 in military intelligence circles, [[open source intelligence]]. It is now commonly used to describe forms of innovative publishing of [[online journalism]], rather than the sourcing of news stories by a professional journalist. In the Dec 25, 2006 issue of TIME magazine this is referred to as [[user generated content|user created content]] and listed alongside more traditional open source projects such as [[OpenSolaris]] and [[Linux]].


==History==
[[Weblogs]], or blogs, are another significant platform for open source culture. Blogs consist of periodic, reverse chronologically ordered posts, using a technology that makes webpages easily updatable with no understanding of design, code, or [[file transfer]] required. While corporations, political campaigns and other formal institutions have begun using these tools to distribute information, many blogs are used by individuals for personal expression, political organizing, and socializing. Some, such as [[LiveJournal]] or [[WordPress]], utilize open source software that is open to the public and can be modified by users to fit their own tastes. Whether the code is open or not, this format represents a nimble tool for people to borrow and re-present culture; whereas traditional websites made the illegal reproduction of culture difficult to regulate, the mutability of blogs makes "open sourcing" even more uncontrollable since it allows a larger portion of the population to replicate material more quickly in the public sphere.
{{main|Open Source history}}


Very similar to [[open standards]], researchers with access to the [[Advanced Research Projects Agency Network]] (ARPANET) used a process called [[Request for Comments]] to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960's collaborative process led to the birth of the [[Internet]] in 1969. There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its [[operating system]]s in the 1960s and the [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software.
[[Messageboards]] are another platform for open source culture. Messageboards (also known as discussion boards or forums), are places online where people with similar interests can congregate and post messages for the community to read and respond to. Messageboards sometimes have moderators who enforce community standards of etiquette such as banning users who are [[spamming|spammers]]. Other common board features are private messages (where users can send messages to one another) as well as chat (a way to have a real time conversation online) and image uploading. Some messageboards use [[phpBB]], which is a free open source package. Where blogs are more about individual expression and tend to revolve around their authors, messageboards are about creating a conversation amongst its users where information can be shared freely and quickly. Messageboards are a way to remove intermediaries from everyday life - for instance, instead of relying on commercials and other forms of advertising, one can ask other users for frank reviews of a product, movie or CD. By removing the cultural middlemen, messageboards help speed the flow of information and exchange of ideas.


The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label "open source" came out of a strategy session<ref name=osihistory>[http://www.opensource.org/history History of the OSI]. [[Open Source Initiative]]. 2006.</ref> held at [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]], [[California]], in reaction to [[Netscape Communications Corporation|Netscape]]'s January 1998 announcement of a source code release for [[Netscape Navigator|Navigator]]. The group of individuals at the session included [[Christine Peterson]] who suggested "open source", [[Todd Anderson]], [[Larry Augustin]], [[Jon "maddog" Hall|Jon Hall]], [[Sam Ockman]], and [[Eric S. Raymond]]. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term [[free software]]. [[Netscape]] licensed and released its code as open source under the [[Netscape Public License]] and subsequently under the [[Mozilla Public License]].<ref name="Muffatto000">{{cite book
[[OpenDocument]] is an [[open format|open]] [[document file format]] for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), [[spreadsheet]]s, charts, and presentations. Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being [[Vendor lock-in|locked in]] to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their [[software license|licensing]] terms to something less favorable.
| title = Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach
| first = Moreno
| last = Muffatto
| publisher = Imperial College Press
| year = 2006
| id = 1860946658
}}</ref>


The term "open source" has been used previously (as early as 1987) with a much wider definition<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19990507233127/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar-1.html</ref><ref>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/browse_thread/thread/ffaf7ac7dcd3f0c2/0243ee9294bdc300?lnk=st&q=&rnum=11#0243ee9294bdc300</ref> and is still used in that wider meaning by many people who do not necessarily accept the [[Open Source Initiative]]'s more limited definition of the term.
[[Open source movie production]] is either an open call system in which a changing crew and cast collaborate in movie production, a system in which the end result is made available for re-use by others or in which exclusively open source products are used in the production. The 2006 movie [[Elephants Dream]] is said to be the "world's first open movie"<ref>[http://www.elephantsdream.org/ http://www.elephantsdream.org/]</ref>, created entirely using [[open source technology]].


The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher [[Tim O'Reilly]]. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit",<ref name=opensourcesummit>[http://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html Open Source Summit] Linux Gazette. 1998.</ref> the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including [[Linus Torvalds]], [[Larry Wall]], [[Brian Behlendorf]], [[Eric Allman]], [[Guido van Rossum]], [[Michael Tiemann]], [[Paul Vixie]], [[Jamie Zawinski]] of [[Netscape]], and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone is widely seen as the birth of the [[Open Source Initiative]].{{Fact|date=August 2007}}
An [[open source documentary]] film has a production process allowing the open contributions of archival material, [[footage]], and other filmic elements, both in unedited and edited form. By doing so, on-line contributors become part of the process of creating the film, helping to influence the editorial and visual material to be used in the documentary, as well as its thematic development. The first open source documentary film to go into production [http://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf "The American Revolution"] <ref>[http://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf "The American Revolution]</ref>," which will examine the role that WBCN-FM in Boston played in the cultural, social and political changes locally and nationally from 1968 to 1974, is being produced by Lichtenstein Creative Media and the non-profit The Fund for Independent Media. [http://www.opensourcecinema.org Open Source Cinema] is a website to create Basement Tapes, a feature documentary about copyright in the digital age, co-produced by the [http://www.nfb.ca National Film Board of Canada].
[[Open Source Filmmaking]] refers to a form of filmmaking that takes a method of idea formation from open source software, but in this case the 'source' for a film maker is raw unedited footage rather than programming code. It can also refer to a method of filmmaking where the process of creation is 'open' i.e. a disparate group of contributors, at different times contribute to the final piece.


The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted [[Debian]]'s Free Software Guidelines to make the [[Open Source Definition]].<ref>[[Bruce Perens|Perens, Bruce]]. [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution]. [[O'Reilly Media]]. 1999.</ref>
[[Open-IPTV]] is [[IPTV]] that is not limited to one recording studio, production studio, or cast. [[Open-IPTV]] uses the Internet or other means to pool efforts and resources together to create an online community that all contributes to a show.
{{Wikibooks|FLOSS Concept Booklet}}
Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity between the mere availability of the source versus the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software ([[FOSS]]), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ([[FLOSS]]), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge. The more legally specific term [[share-alike]] emerged through [[Creative Commons]] to describe mutual obligations and loss of licenses through failure to act on them, which is the specific feature required by [[software libre]] that is not required of open source users/contributors.


==Society and culture==
===Education===
{{unreferencedsec|date=May 2007}}
Within the academic community, there is discussion about expanding what could be called the "intellectual commons" (analogous to the [[Creative Commons]]). Proponents of this view have hailed the [[Connexions]] Project at [[Rice University]], [[MIT OpenCourseWare|OpenCourseWare]] project at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], [[Eugene Thacker]]'s article on "[[Open Source DNA]]", the "Open Source Cultural Database", [[openwebschool]], and [[Wikipedia]] as examples of applying open source outside the realm of computer software.

[[Open source curriculum|Open source curricula]] are instructional resources whose digital source can be freely used, distributed and modified.

Another strand to the academic community is in the area of research. Many funded research projects produce software as part of their work. There is an increasing interest in making the outputs of such projects available under an open source license. In the UK the [[Jisc|Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)]] has developed a policy on open source software. JISC also funds a development service called [[OSS Watch]] which acts as an advisory service for higher and further education institutions wishing to use, contribute to and develop open source software.

===Fitness===
[[CrossFit]] is an open source strength and conditioning fitness movement. Its founder freely shares his methodology and publishes a website with gigabytes of data, information and interactive forums. CrossFit athletes and instructors share their modifications, adaptations and enhancements. The result has been new CrossFit "flavors" including: CrossFit for Kids, CrossFit for Seniors, CrossFit in the Park, and CrossFit for Combat Athletes. Web posts and CrossFit Journal articles often focus on how to modify the program for specific groups who have only limited access to equipment. Examples include high school track athletes and soldiers in Iraq. CrossFit athletes also post [[YouTube]] videos and invite critiques of their form. <ref>http://www.crossfitbeachcities.com/latimes.pdf</ref>

===Innovation communities===
The principle of sharing predates the open source movement; for example, the free sharing of information has been institutionalized in the scientific enterprise since at least the 19th century. Open source principles have always been part of the scientific community. The sociologist [[Robert K. Merton]] described the four basic elements of the community - universalism (an international perspective), communism (sharing information), disinterestedness (removing one's personal views from the scientific inquiry) and organized skepticism (requirements of proof and review) that accurately describe the scientific community today. These principles are, in part, complemented by US law's focus on protecting expression and method but not the ideas themselves. There is also a tradition of publishing research results to the scientific community instead of keeping all such knowledge proprietary. One of the recent initiatives in scientific publishing has been [[open access]] - the idea that research should be published in such a way that it is free and available to the public. There are currently many open access journals where the information is available for free online, however most journals do charge a fee (either to users or libraries for access). The Budapest Open Access Initiative is an international effort with the goal of making all research articles available for free on the Internet. The [[National Institutes of Health]] has recently proposed a policy on "Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information." This policy would provide a free, searchable resource of NIH-funded results to the public and with other international repositories six months after its initial publication. The NIH's move is an important one because there is significant amount of public funding in scientific research. Many of the questions have yet to be answered - the balancing of profit vs. public access, and ensuring that desirable standards and incentives do not diminish with a shift to open access.

[[Benjamin Franklin]] was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the [[Franklin stove]], [[bifocals]] and the [[lightning rod]] to the public domain after successfully profiting off their sales and patents.

New NGO communities are starting to use the open source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA members<ref>http://www.isca-web.org/english/youth/yource/thenetwork</ref>.

[[Open innovation]] is also a new emerging concept which advocate putting R&D in a common pool, the [[Eclipse (software)|Eclipse]] platform is openly presenting itself as an Open innovation network <ref>http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/membersminutes/20070920MembersMeeting/07.09.12-Eclipse-Open-Innovation.pdf</ref>


''The term [[open content]] is more universally used than the term '''open source culture''' coined by supporters of the OSI principles. Please see the main article under that name for applications of the general principles avowed by open source advocates to other cultural material.''
===Arts and recreation===
Copyright protection is used in the [[performing arts]] and even in athletic activities. Some groups have attempted to remove copyright from such practices.<ref>http://www.yogaunity.org</ref>


== Criticism ==
== Criticism ==
{{Refimprovesect|date=July 2007}}
{{Refimprovesect|date=July 2007}}

''The criticisms of the specific OSI principles are dealt with above as part of the definition and differentiation from other terms. The [[open content]] movement does not recognize nor endorse the OSI principles and embraces instead mutual [[share-alike]] agreements that require derived works to be re-integrated and treated equitably, e.g. not [[patent]]ed or [trademark]]ed to the detriment of the individual contributors/creators.''


Critics of “Open Source” publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture requires a substantial amount of labor. Retaining [[intellectual property]] rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. The critics argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where Open Source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news.
Critics of “Open Source” publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture requires a substantial amount of labor. Retaining [[intellectual property]] rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. The critics argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where Open Source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news.
Line 108: Line 83:
Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves.htm Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On.] by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r1.htm responded] to this criticism, and Chuck Connell [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r2.htm answered].
Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves.htm Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On.] by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r1.htm responded] to this criticism, and Chuck Connell [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r2.htm answered].


The legal and cultural criticisms are both addressed as part of a common set of objections and criticisms by those who prefer [[share-alike]] as an organizing principle. This includes [[Creative Commons]] which simply ignores the OSI principles and endorses licenses that clearly violate them such as [[CC-by-nc-sa]].
The [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) opposes the term “Open Source” being applied to what they refer to as “free software”.<ref>{{cite web

Of the vocal critics, the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) - whose [[GFDL]] license is used by [[Wikipedia:itself]], flatly opposes the term “Open Source” being applied to what they refer to as “free software”. Although it's clear that legally free software does qualify as open source, the category is considered abusive. <ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|url = http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|title = Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software
|title = Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software

Revision as of 04:37, 26 November 2007

For other uses, see Open-source model (disambiguation).

Open source is a set of principles and practices that its advocates claim promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge, overwhelmingly understood as the list of same created by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond and maintained by the Open Source Initiative.

Deliberate spread of the term

While the term applied originally only to source code of software, it is often misapplied to other areas which have different and competing principles, which overlap only partially. See open source (journalism) for the only other such definition in widespread use.

Advocates of the open source principles make constant and frequent efforts to disavow, deny, hide or limit the difference between the principles they advocate and those of the software libre and open content movements which demonstrably defy and deny several of the OSI principles. They have also often attempted to define vague terms like open source politics, open source culture and even to redefine open source (journalism) as open source journalism, also known as blogging.

Opponents of the spread of the label "open source", including Richard Stallman, argue that the requirements and restrictions ensure the continuation of the effort, and resist attempts to redefine the labels. He argues also that most supporters of open source are actually supporters of much more equitable agreements and support re-integration of derived works and that most contributors do not intend to release their work to others who can extend it, hide the extensions, patent those very extensions, and demand royalties or restrict the use of all other users. All while not violating the open source principles with respect to the initial code they acquired.

Includes free software, intersects with open content, used by consortia

Perens and Raymond themselves are far clearer and more exact and honest about what constitutes open source licensing, and what does not. Under their definitions, free software is clearly a type of open source, and most consortium efforts like Java and W3 make use of open source licenses. The open content movement intersects with the open source movement but supports licenses such as CC-by-nc-sa that clearly and explicitly and deliberately violate Perens' and Raymond's principles.

Persons unfamiliar with the detailed legal distinctions between the various movements above are usually best advised to use more specific terms describing the actual characteristics of the movement. Better terms, such as mass peer review or social software or open politics or consensus decision making, exist to describe specific types of use or theories. The term open source culture can be used to describe the most general aspects of the model, but "open source" is (according to the principles) a way to describe source code that the public can read, and nothing else. Mass peer review is accordingly implied, but none of the social, political, legal or other attributes are implied - for instance transparency of business deals is not included.

consensus, FLOSS and share-alike

Since dissenting users can create their own versions of any open source software (if they can convince someone to voluntarily release it for redistribution) it can reasonably be said that it evolves by consensus. However there is little use of consensus decision making methods among open source developers, and none is required by the license.

Lawyers, taking their cue from Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons, prefer the legally exact term share-alike to describe the types of restrictions and guarantees that free software and open content require that open source does not. Open source as a movement is agnostic about sharing as it does not compel any sharing or put conditions on sharing of improvements, nor prevent actions that prevent future sharing.

The term FLOSS has evolved to describe the technical attributes of the movement and its processes, without getting into the legal details above.

Perens' principles

Please list them here from a reliable source that is current - there are many bad copies.

Under Perens' definition, open source describes a broad general type of software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent copyright restrictions. The principles at stated say absolutely nothing about trademark or patent use and require absolutely no cooperation to ensure that any common audit or release regime applies to any derived works. It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it may put no restrictions on either the use nor redistribution nor the organization or user whatsoever.

It forbids, in principle, to guarantee continued access to derived works even by the major original contributors. In contrast to free software or open content licenses, which are often confused with open source but have much more rigorous rules and conventions, open source deliberately errs in favour of allowing any use by any party whatsoever, and offers few or no means or recourses to prevent a free rider situation or deal with proliferation of bad copies that misled end users.

Perhaps because of this flexibility, which facilitates large commercial users and vendors, the most successful applications of open source have been in consortium. These use other means such as trademarks to control bad copies and require specific performance guarantees from consortium members to assure re-integration of improvements. Accordingly they do not need potentially conflicting clauses in licenses.

The loose definition has led to a proliferation of licenses that can claim to be open source but which would not satisfy the share alike provision that free software and open content licenses require. A very common license, the Creative Commons CC-by-nc-sa, requires a commercial user to acquire a separate license for for-profit use. This is explicitly against the open source principles, as it discriminates against a type of use or user. However, the requirement imposed by free software to reliably redistribute derived works, does not violate these principles. Accordingly, free software and consortium licenses are a type of open source, but open content isn't insofar as it allows such restrictions. Similar arguments have often been made about the GFDL used in Wikipedia:itself.

non-software use

For forms of user generated content other than software, the open content movement has defined different principles and most supporters of that movement believe in some form of restriction of use and requirement to collaborate or at least reliably credit those individuals whose work is in use. Accordingly, the use of the term open source to describe anything but software is misleading.

This "culture" or ideology takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.[1]

Advocates of the open source principles often point to Wikipedia as an example, but Wikipedia has in fact often restricted certain types of use or user, and the GFDL license it uses makes specific requirements of all users that technically violate the open source principles.

History

Main article: Open Source history

Very similar to open standards, researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960's collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its operating systems in the 1960s and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software.

The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label "open source" came out of a strategy session[2] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source", Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape licensed and released its code as open source under the Netscape Public License and subsequently under the Mozilla Public License.[3]

The term "open source" has been used previously (as early as 1987) with a much wider definition[4][5] and is still used in that wider meaning by many people who do not necessarily accept the Open Source Initiative's more limited definition of the term.

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O'Reilly. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit",[6] the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone is widely seen as the birth of the Open Source Initiative.[citation needed]

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted Debian's Free Software Guidelines to make the Open Source Definition.[7]

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FLOSS Concept Booklet

Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity between the mere availability of the source versus the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software (FOSS), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge. The more legally specific term share-alike emerged through Creative Commons to describe mutual obligations and loss of licenses through failure to act on them, which is the specific feature required by software libre that is not required of open source users/contributors.

Society and culture

The term open content is more universally used than the term open source culture coined by supporters of the OSI principles. Please see the main article under that name for applications of the general principles avowed by open source advocates to other cultural material.

Criticism

The criticisms of the specific OSI principles are dealt with above as part of the definition and differentiation from other terms. The open content movement does not recognize nor endorse the OSI principles and embraces instead mutual share-alike agreements that require derived works to be re-integrated and treated equitably, e.g. not patented or [trademark]]ed to the detriment of the individual contributors/creators.

Critics of “Open Source” publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture requires a substantial amount of labor. Retaining intellectual property rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. The critics argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where Open Source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news.

Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On. by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond responded to this criticism, and Chuck Connell answered.

The legal and cultural criticisms are both addressed as part of a common set of objections and criticisms by those who prefer share-alike as an organizing principle. This includes Creative Commons which simply ignores the OSI principles and endorses licenses that clearly violate them such as CC-by-nc-sa.

Of the vocal critics, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) - whose GFDL license is used by Wikipedia:itself, flatly opposes the term “Open Source” being applied to what they refer to as “free software”. Although it's clear that legally free software does qualify as open source, the category is considered abusive. [8] They also oppose the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as they fear that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.[9][10]

Business models

There are a number of commonly recognized barriers to the adoption of open source software by enterprises. These barriers include the perception that open source licenses are viral, lack of formal support and training, the velocity of change, and a lack of a long term roadmap. The majority of these barriers are risk-related. Many business models exist around open source software to provide a 'whole product' to help reduce these risks. The 'whole product' typically includes support, commercial licenses, professional services, training, certification, partner programs, references and use cases. These business models range from 'services only' organisations that do not participate in the development of the software to models where the majority of the software is created by full-time committers that are employed by a central organization. These business models have come into existence recently and their operation is not commonly understood. One model that has been developed to explain this is the Bee Keeper Model

See also

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Notes and references

  1. ^ Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. ed 3.0. 2000.
  2. ^ History of the OSI. Open Source Initiative. 2006.
  3. ^ Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Imperial College Press. 1860946658.
  4. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/19990507233127/www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar-1.html
  5. ^ http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/browse_thread/thread/ffaf7ac7dcd3f0c2/0243ee9294bdc300?lnk=st&q=&rnum=11#0243ee9294bdc300
  6. ^ Open Source Summit Linux Gazette. 1998.
  7. ^ Perens, Bruce. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Media. 1999.
  8. ^ Stallman, Richard (2007-06-16). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software". Philosophy of the GNU Project. GNU Project. Retrieved 2007-07-23. As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, "It's free software and it gives you freedom!"—more and louder than ever. Every time you say "free software" rather than "open source," you help our campaign.
  9. ^ Stallman, Richard (2007-06-19). "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"". Philosophy of the GNU Project. GNU Project. Retrieved 2007-07-23. Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the "keep quiet" approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.
  10. ^ Stallman, Richard (2007-06-16). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software". Philosophy of the GNU Project. GNU Project. Retrieved 2007-07-23. Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. [...] Yet some open source supporters have proposed "open source DRM" software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be "open source," and use the open source development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse.

External links

The Wikibook [[wikibooks:|]] has a page on the topic of: Open Source
Look up open source in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_model&oldid=173826112"