Open Source the elegant design, the ugly burden of free

Open Source the elegant design, the ugly burden of free
In a day of brand awareness, has open source achieved what free software could not? I'm just a new comer in the reality of this whole argument. I have been a passionate advocate of free software for all of my digital life. As much with computing, historical choice impact the day-to-day uses of computing, with hindsight I'm positive that some of the choices that where made decades a go would have been different, however I'm brought back to a old Russian saying; if you keep one eye on the past and one eye on the future your blind in one eye, if you keep both eye's on the future your blind in both. What shaped us, is what will continue to shape us, and the choices we make now have an impact on generations not born yet. The ugly truth of software and computing at general, is for a long time now, best practises are not the dominating force in pushing new and better technologies forward, but rather political and commercial bargaining.
 
Propaganda, or as I have come to recognise it's daily name FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) shapes modern computing, like a unwelcome relic of a cold war with Doctors spinning the world into a tight mesh of control. We see it in modern politics, we've seen it in mayor conflicts, and my peers see it in software. I understand that not many lay persons think about software the same as myself or my peers, and for that I'm not sure that all of my peers look at software freedom the same as I. I suppose it's true to infer that only software people find software passionate, just as I find accounting to be somewhat of a dull subject.
 
I would like to think we all feel that in a fair world, ideas are judged on their own merit rather than the commercial vehicles driving them. That there is room for true inspiration to grow unhindered by share-holders passion for profit. We all know that this isn't a fair world, and I can tell you software is only a mirror of that. Freedom, is after all only a philosophical concept and in this world not everyone has it. Most of the western world take it for granted, but like all ideals and ideas they must be nourished, nurtured, and raised. I have had the phrase “when your in the real world” thrown at me for sometime now, it upsets if I'm honest. It infers that I have not had any experience of it, and yet I wasn't always a student, I have worked for massive companies, I have been in charge of expensive stock, and ensuring that the share-holders get their profit, I have been in charge of assets, employees. I have had bills to pay (and still do), I have had to put food on the table (and still do), I have to provide for my family (and I still do). If that is not the face of the real world then I'm unsure what more I can do in this life time to get any more experience. This is not to say, I don't appreciate that there is a fine details to it, and by far I haven't experienced the whole of life yet, but dare I say those that have thrown that at me haven't either.
 
However I digress from what I wanted to originally talk about, which is impact of free, or more to the point the association of free. As I have said, in the above, the world is not fair. We must all choose to do things that go against our ethical and moral compass, we do this to survive and to navigate this world. The fact of the matter is marketing is a part of our life. It's nature is to influence and to persuade society, and it's people in to thinking, or acting in a certain pre-set manner. No matter how in my personal view ideas and concepts should be judged on their own merits the truth is their not. Marketing affects computing, and more to the point it affects Linux, free software, and open source.
 
I think it's fair to assume that free software has a bad stigma attached to it, which is a shame really. Freedom in software is critical for humanity at large. I'm sure I'm not the only person that thinks that. Software touches people's life so many ways, great software does it without people knowing. From the their computers, to the set-top boxes they use, to the software that handles with or not you've paid your electricity bill, your medical records, your right to vote.
 
I seem to spend most of my time explaining not just to new people interested in Linux, but even people who use it what the freedom in software is. It can be a strange concept to explain. I think people are quick to say they understand but maybe not in-depth as they thought. I find myself using the tried and tested phrase “free as in freedom, not free as in beer”, and in the reverse of that people saying oh right I get you. Because free software is generally free of cost, doesn't mean it always will be. What make it a free program is when it gives it's users these freedoms
 
Freedom 0
The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
 
This is where I sometimes see the confusion for people. Freeware, or Shareware tend to limit what the users can do with the program. With such terms as “For Personal Use Only”
Freedom 1
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. The availability of the source code is a precondition to this.
 
This is where the sticky wicket, so to speak of free software sometimes lays. The fact that you can take a program that goes some way to fixing your problem, study the inner workings, and then implement changes that suits you, is a fantastic freedom. The perceived issue here, is that you in some way give your commercial advantage up, or you make your product less secure is a strange one. I may ramble on here a little more than I wanted however there is a point or two that makes this seem slightly archaic.

What it does in reality is make your product better, when you hide the inner workings of your program you are ensuring that people have to take your word for the quality of your software. It shows that the confidence in your program is not one of, hay we're doing a good job, and your going to love our product, but more of if you look at how we did it we'll go bust. I think especially in a service driven world, that this is more true now than it has ever been before. Lot's of companies have released their code, and have not only survived but benefited from it.
 
As for security, if the security requires hard coded programming tricks to keep it secure, then at best it's an illusion of security. We all know how locks work, it doesn't make them any less secure, security by obscurity shouldn't be trusted. The benefit of having thousands of reviewers of your code enables you to have testing that you couldn't afford in the commercial secretive world.
 
Freedom 2
The freedom to redistribute the code, so people around you can benefit.
 
This freedom to me leads to innovation in, it is good practice in programming not to re-invent the wheel. There is an argument, which I believe to be false however that's only my opinion if you release your product then your going to have to compete against your self. That someone would take your code and redistribute it as your competition. I would have to agree that could happen, but your left saying your still in the driving seat. Your in charge of your development, your in charge of the expertise that made that product, and your competitor that took the code, is always going to be at your mercy. You know what your code changes are going to be, you now what new features your going to have and they are always going to be one step behind you. People will only put up with second best, if they couldn't go with the best to start off with.
 
Freedom 3
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public so the whole community can benefit, access to the source code is a precondition of this too.
 
This is true freedom, I give you my best recipe, you like it, but you think it's missing something. You change it, I like it more, I had something else to it, and so on and so on until we have made between us the best recipe ever. Collaboration, interplay, the swapping of creative influence, and concept. This is not just a freedom but a way of life. Because you have made changes though your not forced to give those changes to the public, but it begs the question why would you not. I'm sure that there is a tone of reasons why, but I just can't think of any.
 
Now what I'm left thinking is these freedoms are important enough to be part of not just my life but a whole community at large however why do they not impact more. Why does the term open source collect more prestige at the moment? It offers the users less freedom, it offers the developers less freedom, it can be complicated to explain. However the one thing it does do is supply simplicity in it's name. It's a genius stroke, Open Source tells you exactly what you want to know before you look in depth into it, namely the source is open for everyone, which does cover some of the freedoms I talked about earlier, but not all. I'm thrown to the Ray Ozzie quote “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”, however the Free Software Foundation take to a negative approach to Open Source, the reality is it takes away from the struggle of ensuring every user has freedom. I tend to agree. However if freedom is a philosophical concept then open source is a gateway.
 
The battle of going into companies and using the term free whips ideas of it having no value, if it costs nothing it can't be worth nothing. Well if you put a dollar sign on freedom, how much you going to charge me to breath. The reality is if you spend all your time explain a concept before you even get to planning a project then your on a uphill battle all ready. Open source has brought much needed attention to software the issue where it causes concern is it's people saying, oh it's open source it costs you nothing, you can download it for free. Hang on what about freedom, without freedom open source would be nothing, and dare I say in the modern context without open source free software would not be where it is today. I throw one more quote In to the air Alan Perils once said “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
 
I hope I have not bored you too long with my mumblings, but rather left you in a state of confusion, and a concept that software freedom is important. I make no apology for the confusion the whole debate of Free Software Vs Open Source software is as complicated as the day is long.
 
Just remember Linux is simple, it just takes a genius to figure out it's simplicity.
 
Software freedom is not just a wish, it's a necessity
 
Arron M Finnon
www.thelinuxsociety.org.uk