
Photo under Creative Commons license
I was thinking for a long time now that maybe I should write something on the Open Source movement and maybe now it’s the time – open source can be anything related to universal access to a resource and the possibility to redistribute it and improve it. It relates to the greater concept of Open Collaboration.
I was first introduced to Linux luckily at a point in its life when it was a rather stable platform. And at a point in time when my operating system was slow, had inter-version issues (see editors) and kept ‘freezing’. The new platform was a bit weird to me, due to the different types of rights, but I soon learned how to use it and it was a cool breeze to be able to work in a robust open document format (odt) and further save the document in an universal look like pdf. Yeah, I know, pdf is not open source, but it’s a happy workaround when users from other platforms haven’t got various readers at hand excerpt the no_no_ and Adobe Reader. I soon learned that my system can run for a pretty long time without interruption and my tasks became more fluid. I could do the stuff I wanted to in no time, I was impressed. And then I wanted to learn more about it…
Well, I pretty much liked the idea: it was based on open standards, this meaning that people coded the operating system and left it open for view to anyone. Anyone could pick the code and improve it, if wanted to (be it a program or even the linux core, called kernel). This turned into many different versions of distributions and even to forks between communities! This didn’t get me scared, I am on the same page with Mouffe and think that conflict is good; conflict is the engine of progress. Most Linux communities are virtual and organize themselves through online tools and mailing lists however offline events like conferences and workshops do exist so sometimes people get the chance to meet – this case study really qualifies for mediated mobilization and commons-based peer production.
I soon learned that corporations don’t leave their Operating System‘s code open – they don’t want someone looking into their work. And wondered: why would you refuse the potential of creativity and improvement, when it is out there?
Actually not all corporations do this. One of them, called Red Hat embraced Linux by developing it into Red Hat Enterprise platform and together with a robust team of selected developers adapted the OS to corporate/business standards. This meaning that businesses themselves could run the OS and be happy with it.. the same developers work side by side with Linux community alongside Fedora Project and they use both the community’s insights and innovations while having an input in Fedora’s development.
This goes to show that code can be open and businesses can support this – even gain advantage from the external communities’ input. The community of people can and will be involved, this shows a sense of participating in the world, by sharing and improving knowledge.
I do remember of a story – when one tech-oriented customer had an issue with his Sony MD player and had to actually ‘break the software code’ in order to see what’s in and he actually found a solution to it. He tried to speak to Sony to report the issue and offer them a solution, however Sony reps got very upset over the breaking of the code and decided not to cooperate and even threaten their customer with a lawsuit. Pretty sad that they decided to stop over the means as opposed to the purpose.
Now, there is a point that Mozorov tries to make regarding openness and open standards. While these are not bad, institutions can use this in a sneaky way. He mentions that now open standards are used to show the openness of the governments, however openness in the context of governments should mean something else – accountability and transparency in the day to day actions. This, again, doesn’t mean that open source as a concept is faulty, just that people should be aware of what governments’ responsibilities are and pressure them to follow up on these, when they don’t.
I trust that Open Source is here to stay.
What do you think? Any thoughts on the pros and cons of open software?