Not heard of open source? It’s the new way to tap into the world’s resources. And big business and techie whizzkids alike are excited by it, says Richard Brass

Many supporters are convinced that open source is the best thing to happen to IT since Alan Turing (the founding father of computer science) started tinkering with those Enigma machines. Far from an Internet world dominated by big corporations out to control everything, squash independence and exploit the ordinary punter, the open source vision, the argument goes, will let freedom ring across the networks of the globe. It will break the power of the so-called big corporations and allow creativity and innovation to burst forth from anyone with a laptop on their knees and an ounce of imagination in their brain.

Open source, its advocates claim, is nothing short of revolutionary and that’s a theory that practically everyone seems pretty much agreed upon. So why is everybody in such a spin about this software revolution and more importantly, what exactly is open source?

Instead of software being developed within big companies, trussed up heavily in IP protection and then sold to a hungry public desperate to gorge themselves, open source is far more democratic and participatory.

Under the open source approach, software is released along with its source code, and then under specific licence conditions anyone can use it, modify it and distribute it, whether on its own or in new software combinations. The aim is to harness the power of the global community to produce better, more reliable, more flexible and cheaper software, free of the constraints applied by companies in the conventional structure. Indeed, aeroplane designers and drinks companies are just two very different industries benefiting from harnessing this previously untapped pool of creativity.

Open source has grown to the point where big software companies can't afford to ignore it, and neither can they control it, but then again, why should they?

Unfenced? Subversive? Then why are such respectable and big names such as Microsoft and IBM (to name two of many) submitting licences to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for approval?

The answer is that, despite early outbursts and the enthusiasm of adherents around the world, open source is not nearly as radical as it seems. In fact, the OSI was founded specifically as a more commercially acceptable alternative to the radical free software movement, whose moral crusade to make software completely free and open to all has understandably made established businesses sit up and take notice.

The devil, as usual, is in the detail. Each open source licence has its own unique advantages and disadvantages and, rather than open source being a free handout, it often comes tied in with other provisos, such as charging for installation and technical support.

Open source has grown to the point where big software companies can’t afford to ignore it, and neither can they control it, but then again, why should they? Open source promises better quality products with a higher reliability, and that must be a lure for software companies as it allows them in effect to have their software developed and tested by countless willing volunteers, at home and for free. That’s either very clever or very lucky.

The truth of the matter is that open source has already grown up, and there are thousands upon thousands of technological whizzkids at home at this very moment, tinkering away at a piece of open source software to make it that little bit better.

Even more surprising, there are probably still some techie-types out there who haven’t even heard about the open source revolution. They’re probably too busy reinventing the wheel.

User Comments

Post a comment