In the software world, there are two dramatically different viewpoints when it comes to software development. One is the proprietary model used by corporations such as Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple, among others. The second is the increasing popular open source model. The open source model, also known as the Free Software movement, is a modern day example of dissent in the computer world. The idea of free software started when computer users began to look for alternatives to the current software offerings.
The Free Software movement began in 1983 when Richard Stallman announced the GNU project. GNU, which stands for “Gnu’s Not Unix” was an attempt to create a UNIX-like operating system that was not only free monetarily, but also free as in the freedoms it afforded it’s users. The most important things that came out of the GNU project were not the software itself, but the idea that software should be free and the General Public License. The GPL essentially states that the end user has the right to run the software, to analyze how the software was made, to modify the software in any way he or she sees fit, and to then redistribute a modified version of that software. In short, it allows the user a great deal of freedom with respect the the software, and is often referred to as the software equivalent of free speech. In fact, open source programs are often referred to as “free as in speech” while a program that is available for no cost, but uses a proprietary development model, is referred to as “free as in beer.”
The free software movement has its roots based largely in dissent. It began as an opposition to proprietary software, but grew into something much larger. Now people try free software for many reasons. Some don’t want to pay for a piece of software they don’t plan on using, others are perhaps curious as to how good a piece of software provided at no charge can be. Regardless of their reasons, these new users often find themselves forming their own opinions on the subject.
Developers that begin using free software, such as myself, often end up releasing their own creations under a free license, because the more developers that are writing and working on free software, the higher the caliber of the end-product. Their are, however, several misconceptions about free software. The first is that by releasing your product under a free license, you are not allowed to charge money for your software, and therefore, it is impossible to earn a living writing open source software. This is far from the truth, and the General Public License in no way prevents selling your product. A product can have a cost associated with it and still be considered “free.” Secondly, by distribution your creation under a free license, you do not give up all rights to it. You are still the owner and creator of your software, and any redistributions of it will still carry your name. The final misconception is that free software is automatically inferior to it’s proprietary counterpart, which is also not always true. Many of the open source products in existence are just as good or even better than any proprietary alternative that money could buy.
One of open source’s flagship products is Mozilla Firefox, which is currently approaching its second (version 2.0) major release. Firefox began as an enthusiast’s web browser, but was rapidly adopted by the general public and is generally accepted as superior to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 6. Almost two years after Firefox’s initial release, Internet Explorer’s usage has dropped below 80% for the first time in recent history, and Microsoft has announced it’s brand-new Internet Explorer 7, which features many new features, such as tabbed browsing and news feeds, both of which were made popular by Mozilla in their Firefox web browser. Another flagship product of the open source model is OpenOffice.org, an office suite compatible with Microsoft Office, but without the hefty price tag.
People who oppose open source software, usually developers at companies such as Microsoft, usually use the idiom “You get what you pay for” to defend proprietary, commercial applications. However, this is not always necessarily true. When it comes to software, or any technology for that matter, competition results in innovation, and many of the open source programs available today are providing companies like Microsoft the competition needed to force them to improve their product. When a developer has a monopoly on a certain application, there is no need for that developer to continue to improve upon it. As mentioned earlier, it wasn’t until the Mozilla Foundation introduced their Firefox web browser that Microsoft began work on any new features for their Internet Explorer browser.
It almost defies logic that a free, open source application can be of superior quality than a program funded by software sales. However, there are a few things to consider in this respect. First, open source developers are not creating their program for profit, they are creating it because they want to. Most open source projects begin life as a hobby. Second, a much greater amount of quality control and testing goes into an open source application, because an entire community is working together to finish the project. Open source applications don’t have deadlines to meet, and as such the program is never released before it is finished.
The free software movement is changing the way software is made, whether companies choose to acknowledge it or not. Microsoft released public beta versions of each of their next-generation programs: Windows Vista, Internet Explorer 7, and Office 2007. The open source model has proven that the key to software stability is to allow your users to begin testing the product early. However, what Microsoft, among others, will not adopt is the concept of releasing the source code of the application to the public, which would allow testers to track down not only the problems, but the solutions as well. It is this refusal that will ultimately give free software an edge against proprietary alternatives.
This was a paper for my English 102 class on the topic of dissent. Don’t yell at me if I didn’t get some of the finer points of free software and the GNU philosophy exactly right, I was trying to provide a broad, simple, overview.