The definiton of open source, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is designating software for which the original program files used to compile the applications are available to users to be modified and redistributed as they wish.
Programs like Microsoft Word are written in code by programmers. It compiles the code in order to create the program. This essentially makes the code impossible to see. That’s fine if you’re an average user of computers. Why would you ever need to see the code anyway? Most of you wouldn’t want to or need to see the code of a program you use.
If a company or individual writes the code for a program and keeps that code to themselves then no one else can duplicate exactly what they have created and this company or individual has a marketable product.
If a company or individual writes the code for a program and publishes the code for anyone to see, their program is considered to be “open source.” This makes it virtually impossible to profit from the creation of this program. Open source advocates insist that programs that are open source are of better quality and more reliable.
Open source detractors bring up the fact that companies that create software stand behind it. If problems arise with the program, you would have someone to call or e-mail. With an open source program, you often do not have someone to contact when something isn’t working properly.
Bottom line for open source software is if you’re a programmer yourself, open source can be very valuable. If you’re a poor college student, the “free” price of open source software is the right price. If you’re a business that needs reliable software, open source may not be the right direction.
The open source movement has permeated beyond the Information Technology arena.
People who believe that open source programs should be the only way to use computers want companies like Microsoft to publish their code for all to see. If Microsoft did such a thing, ir would not be able to charge much money for its products. People could download the code and use the programs for free.
Companies like Microsoft have armies of programmers who work collaboratively to create a program. It is in the company’s best interest to create the best program that they can. It is also in the company’s best interest to stand behind that product with its best efforts. People are willing to pay, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, to have a solution to a problem that needs to be solved.
Other companies like Kimberly-Clark, Schneider National and even Goodwill hire it’s own programming teams to write custom code for their very specific needs. Divulging this type of code to the public could be damaging for these companies since this same software could give their competition the same edge that they came up with.
You’ve heard that many musicians are worried about their songs being “stolen” by people that download their music without having paid for it. This is what these people do for a living.
Programmers have the same right. They are allowed to want to be able to make a living at programming. If they choose, they may keep their code to themselves while asking for a reasonable fee for the ability to utilize their creation.
They also have the right to publish it so everyone can use their creation for free. Just how there are musicians who believe in the purity of the art and couldn’t fathom charging people to hear them perform, there are the musicians that would like to reap the rewards from their hard work.
There’s one of many differences between musicians and programmers that is worth pointing out. The number of programmers that think that their work should be free of charge seems larger than the number of musicians that wouldn’t be willing to profit from their performing.
Be the first to comment on this article!