Open-source-software movement

The label "open source" was created and adopted by a group of people in the free-software movement at a strategy session[4] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source-code release for Navigator. One of the reasons behind using the term was that "the advantage of using the term open source is that the business world usually tries to keep free technologies from being installed."[5] Those people who adopted the term used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term "free software". Later in February 1998, Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond founded an organization called Open Source Initiative (OSI) "as an educational, advocacy, and stewardship organization at a cusp moment in the history of that culture."[6]

The open-source movement has faced a number of legal challenges. Companies that manage open-source products have some difficulty securing their trademarks. For example, the scope of "implied license" conjecture remains unclear and can compromise an enterprise's ability to patent productions made with open-source software. Another example is the case of companies offering add-ons for purchase; licensees who make additions to the open-source code that are similar to those for purchase may have immunity from patent suits.

In the court case "Jacobsen v. Katzer", the plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to put the required attribution notices in his modified version of the software, thereby violating license. The defendant claimed Artistic License in not adhering to the conditions of the software's use, but the wording of the attribution notice decided that this was not the case. "Jacobsen v Katzer" established open-source software's equality to proprietary software in the eyes of the law.

In a court case accusing Microsoft of being a monopoly, Linux and open-source software was introduced in court to prove that Microsoft had valid competitors and was grouped in with Apple.

There are resources available for those involved open-source projects in need of legal advice. The Software Freedom Law Center features a primer on open-source legal issues. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review offers peer-reviewed information for lawyers on free-software issues.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was instrumental in the formalization of the open-source movement. The OSI was founded by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens in February 1998 with the purpose of providing general education and advocacy of the open-source label through the creation of the Open Source Definition that was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The OSI has become one of the main supporters and advocators of the open-source movement.[6]

In February 1998, the open-source movement was adopted, formalized, and spearheaded by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), an organization formed to market software "as something more amenable to commercial business use"[3] The OSI owns the trademark "Open Source".[2] The main tool they adopted for this was The Open Source Definition.[13]

The open-source label was conceived at a strategy session that was held on February 3, 1998 in Palo Alto, California and on April 8 of the same year, the attendees of Tim O’Reilly's Free Software Summit voted to promote the use of the term "open source".[6]

Overall, the software developments that have come out of the open-source movement have not been unique to the computer-science field, but they have been successful in developing alternatives to propriety software. Members of the open-source community improve upon code and write programs that can rival much of the propriety software that is already available.[3]

The rhetorical discourse used in open-source movements is now being broadened to include a larger group of non-expert users as well as advocacy organizations. Several organized groups such as the Creative Commons and global development agencies have also adopted the open-source concepts according to their own aims and for their own purposes.[14]

The factors affecting the open-source movement's legal formalization are primarily based on recent political discussion over copyright, appropriation, and intellectual property.[15]

• The collaborative nature of the open-source community creates software that can offer customizability and, as a result, promotes the adoption of its products.[16]
• The open-source community promotes the creation of software that is not proprietary, resulting in lower costs.[16]
• Individuals who have intrinsic interest in code writing and software creation motivate the development of open-source software within the community. This differs from proprietary software, the development of which is often motivated through potential monetary gains.[16]
• An open-source tool puts the system administrator in control of the level of risk assumed in deploying the tool.[17]
• Open source provides flexibility not available in closed products. The hope is that individuals make improvements to an open tool and will offer those improvements to the original developer and community at large. The give-and-take of the gift economy benefits the entire community.[17]
• Open-source licenses and software can be combined with proprietary software. While open source was initially seen as a threat to corporations, some companies found ways to strengthen their proprietary code with open-source code, re-releasing it as an improvement.[18]
• In the event of market failure, programmers and innovators work together to make sure that the software still works[19]
• Globalization of Market

The open-source movement has allowed smaller businesses to participate in the global economy. Before, smaller businesses did not have access to the software needed to participate or compete in the global market. It was the larger corporations, the producers of the networks and software who had the power. "That is, individuals who have access to the software needed to create, organize, or distribute content can plug into and participate in the global community".[20] The creation of the open-source movement has created "a degree of global computing access that might have been unthinkable in a world where proprietary was the only option."[20] Individuals or organizations with access to an open source had the means needed to develop technical material for a variety of consumers. The open-source movement created equal opportunities for people all over the world to participate in the global economy.

Members of the open-source movement stress the importance of differentiating between open-source software and free software. Although the two issues are related, they are quite different. The open-source movement and the free-software movement are different, but they work together. Both movements strive for freedom of the Internet and dislike the idea of ownership over a website.[21] For both open-source and free software, one can find the source code and executable component easily and for free online. The largest difference is that free software requires any changes to be submitted to the original maker for redistribution, and any derivative software must also be distributed as free software. This is mainly to keep companies from making minor changes to free software and redistributing it as their own, for a price.[22]

A major advantage to open-source code is the ability for a variety of different people to edit and fix problems and errors that have occurred. Naturally, because there are more people who can edit the material, there are more people who can help make the information more credible and reliable. The open-source mission statement promises better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in. They stress the importance of maintaining the Open Source Definition. This trademark creates a trusted group that connects all users and developers together.[23] To fully understand the Open Source Definition, one must understand certain terms: Free redistribution means that there is no restriction on any party to sell or give away the software to third parties. Source Code means that the program must efficiently publicize the means of obtaining the source code. Derived works means that the program must allow certain works to be distributed under the same terms. There must be a promise of no discriminating against any certain persons or groups. All of these factors allow for the open-source movement to become available to all and easy to access, which is their overall mission. The latest updates from the Open Source Institution took place on January 19, 2011: The OSI collaborated with the Free Software Foundation and together they updated a version of the request that they have sent to the US Department of Justice.[24]

• The structure of the open-source community requires that individuals have programming expertise in order to engage in open-code modification and exchange. Individuals interested in supporting the open-source movement may lack this skill set.[3]
• Programmers and developers make up a large percentage of the open-source community and sought-out technical support and/or documentation may not be useful or clear to open-source software lay-users.[16]
• The structure of the open-source community is one that involves contributions of multiple developers and programmers; software produced in this fashion may lack standardization and compatibility with various computer applications and capabilities.[16]
• Production can be very limited. Programmers that create open-source software often can turn their attention elsewhere very quickly. This opens the door for many bug-filled programs and applications out there. Because no one is paid to create it, many projects are never completed.[25]
• In the open-source industry, the user decides the quality of the software. A user must learn the skills of software creation independently and then make the appropriate determinations for quality and capabilities.[26]
• Librarians may not be equipped to take on this new responsibility of technologies.[27]
• There is no guarantee that development will happen. It is unknown if an open-source project will become usable, especially when a project is started without significant support from one or more organizations. Even if the project does reach a usable stage, it is possible the project can die if there is not enough funding or interest toward it.
• It is sometimes difficult to know that a project exists, and its current status. Especially for open-source projects without significant support, there is not much advertising involved in open-source software.
• The amount of support for an open-source project varies highly. The available support for open-source software is predominantly self-motivated discussions found on the Internet, sometimes moderated by a core group of contributors. The amount of documentation or guides for an open-source project also varies highly. More popular or company-backed projects often have more detailed and maintained documentation. However, as open-source projects are regularly changing, documentation can easily fall out of date.
• There is no guarantee of updates. Although open-source software is available to anyone for free, regular updates are not assured since users do not pay for its use.
• Beyond the obvious detriments towards the theoretical success of open-source software, there are several factors that contribute to the lack of long-term success in open-source projects. One of the most obvious drawback is that without pay or royalty licensing, there is little financial incentive for a programmer to become involved with a project in the first place, or to continue development and support once the initial product is released. This leads to innumerable examples of well-anticipated software being forever condemned to beta versions and unsupported early model products. With donations as the only source of income for a truly open-source (and GPL-licensed) project, there is almost no certainty in the future of the project simply because of developer abandonment, making it a poor choice for any sort of application in which future versions, support and a long-term plan would be essential, as is the case for most business software.[28]
• Organizations with enterprise agreements still pay licensing agreements even if they choose to run alternative open-source software. Therefore, many organizations are unlikely to consider using alternative products. As a cost-saving method of using Microsoft products, many large corporations use enterprise agreements and therefore pay a single company wide IT licensing fee, at lower cost per product. "Organizations with EAs that are interested in alternative products can benefit from the gap-filler scenario, but only after they drop Microsoft Office from their EA at the next renewal and final true-up."[29]

Historically, researchers have characterized open source contributors as a centralized, onion-shaped group.[30] The center of the onion consists of the core contributors who drive the project forward through large amounts of code and software design choices. The second-most layer are contributors who respond to pull requests and bug reports. The third-most layer out are contributors who mainly submit bug reports. The farthest out layer are those who watch the repository and users of the software that's generated. This model has been used in research to understand the lifecycle of open source software, understand contributors to open source software projects, how tools such as GitHub can help contributors at the various levels of involvement in the project, and further understand how the distributed nature of open source software may affect the productivity of developers.[31][32][33]

Some researchers have disagreed with this model. Crowston et al.'s work has found that some teams are much less centralized and follow a more distributed workflow pattern.[31] The authors report that there's a weak correlation between project size and centralization, with smaller projects being more centralized and larger projects showing less centralization. However, the authors only looked at bug reporting and fixing, so it remains unclear whether this pattern is only associated with bug finding and fixing or if centralization does become more distributed with size for every aspect of the open source paradigm.

An understanding of a team's centralization versus distributed nature is important as it may inform tool design and aid new developers in understanding a team's dynamic. One concern with open source development is the high turnover rate of developers, even among core contributors (those at the center of the "onion").[34] In order to continue an open source project, new developers must continually join but must also have the necessary skill-set to contribute quality code to the project. Through a study of GitHub contribution on open source projects, Middleton et al. found that the largest predictor of contributors becoming full-fledged members of an open source team (moving to the "core" of the "onion") was whether they submitted and commented on pull requests. The authors then suggest that GitHub, as a tool, can aid in this process by supporting "checkbox" features on a team's open source project that urge contributors to take part in these activities.[33]

With the growth and attention on the open-source movement, the reasons and motivations of programmers for creating code for free has been under investigation. In a paper from the 15th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association on the open-source movement, the incentives of programmers on an individual level as well as on a company or network level were analyzed. What is essentially the intellectual gift giving of talented programmers challenges the "self-interested-economic-agent paradigm",[35] and has made both the public and economists search for an understanding of what the benefits are for programmers.

• Altruism: The argument for altruism is limited as an explanation because though some exists, the programmers do not focus their kindness on more charitable causes. If the generosity of working for free was a viable motivation for such a prevalent movement, it is curious why such a trend has not been seen in industries such as biotechnology that would have a much bigger impact on the public good.[35]
• Community sharing and improvement: The online community is an environment that promotes continual improvements, modifications, and contributions to each other's work. A programmer can easily benefit from open-source software because by making it public, other testers and subprograms can remove bugs, tailor code to other purposes, and find problems. This kind of peer-editing feature of open-source software promotes better programs and a higher standard of code.[35]
• Recognition: Though a project may not be associated with a specific individual, the contributors are often recognized and marked on a project's server or awarded social reputation. This allows for programmers to receive public recognition for their skills, promoting career opportunities and exposure. In fact, the founders of Sun Microsystems and Netscape began as open-source programmers.[35]
• Ego: "If they are somehow assigned to a trivial problem and that is their only possible task, they may spend six months coming up with a bewildering architecture...merely to show their friends and colleagues what a tough nut they are trying to crack."[36] Ego-gratification has been cited as a relevant motivation of programmers because of their competitive community.[36] An OSS (open-source software) community has no clear distinction between developers and users, because all users are potential developers. There is a large community of programmers trying to essentially outshine or impress their colleagues.[37] They enjoy having other programmers admire their works and accomplishments, contributing to why OSS projects have a recruiting advantage for unknown talent than a closed-source company.[36]
• Creative expression: Personal satisfaction also comes from the act of writing software as an equivalent to creative self-expression – it is almost equivalent to creating a work of art. The rediscovery of creativity, which has been lost through the mass production of commercial software products can be a relevant motivation.[38]

The vast majority of programmers in open-source communities are male. In a study for the European Union on free and open-source software communities, researchers found that only 1.5% of all contributors are female.[39] Although women are generally underrepresented in computing, the percentage of women in tech professions is actually much higher, close to 25%.[40] This discrepancy suggests that female programmers are overall less likely than male programmers to participate in open-source projects.

Some research and interviews with members of open-source projects have described a male-dominated culture within open-source communities that can be unwelcoming or hostile towards females.[41] There are initiatives such as Outreachy that aim to support more women and other underrepresented gender identities to participate in open-source software. However, within the discussion forums of open-source projects the topic of gender diversity can be highly controversial and even inflammatory.[41] A central vision in open-source software is that because the software is built and maintained on the merit of individual code contributions, open-source communities should act as a meritocracy.[42] In a meritocracy, the importance of an individual in the community depends on the quality of their individual contributions and not demographic factors such as age, race, religion, or gender. Thus proposing changes to the community based on gender, for example, to make the community more inviting towards females, go against the ideal of a meritocracy by targeting certain programmers by gender and not based on their skill alone.[41]

There is evidence that gender does impact a programmer's perceived merit in the community. A 2016 study identified the gender of over one million programmers on GitHub, by linking the programmer's GitHub account to their other social media accounts.[43] Between male and female programmers, the researchers found that female programmers were actually more likely to have their pull requests accepted into the project than male programmers, however only when the female had a gender-neutral profile. When females had profiles with a name or image that identified them as female, they were less likely than male programmers to have their pull requests accepted. Another study in 2015 found that of open-source projects on GitHub, gender diversity was a significant positive predictor of a team's productivity, meaning that open-source teams with a more even mix of different genders tended to be more highly productive.[42]

Libraries are using open-source software to develop information as well as library services. The purpose of open source is to provide a software that is cheaper, reliable and has better quality. The one feature that makes this software so sought after is that it is free. Libraries in particular benefit from this movement because of the resources it provides. They also promote the same ideas of learning and understanding new information through the resources of other people. Open source allows a sense of community. It is an invitation for anyone to provide information about various topics. The open-source tools even allow libraries to create web-based catalogs. According to the IT source there are various library programs that benefit from this.[27]

Government agencies and infrastructure software — Government Agencies are utilizing open-source infrastructure software, like the Linux operating system and the Apache Web-server into software, to manage information.[44] In 2005, a new government lobby was launched under the name National Center for Open Source Policy and Research (NCOSPR) "a non-profit organization promoting the use of open source software solutions within government IT enterprises."[45]

Open-source movement in the military — Open-source movement has potential to help in the military. The open-source software allows anyone to make changes that will improve it. This is a form of invitation for people to put their minds together to grow a software in a cost efficient manner. The reason the military is so interested is because it is possible that this software can increase speed and flexibility. Although there are security setbacks to this idea due to the fact that anyone has access to change the software, the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages. The fact that the open-source programs can be modified quickly is crucial. A support group was formed to test these theories. The Military Open Source Software Working Group was organized in 2009 and held over 120 military members. Their purpose was to bring together software developers and contractors from the military to discover new ideas for reuse and collaboration. Overall, open-source software in the military is an intriguing idea that has potential drawbacks but they are not enough to offset the advantages.[46]

Open source in education — Colleges and organizations use software predominantly online to educate their students. Open-source technology is being adopted by many institutions because it can save these institutions from paying companies to provide them with these administrative software systems. One of the first major colleges to adopt an open-source system was Colorado State University in 2009 with many others following after that. Colorado State Universities system was produced by the Kuali Foundation who has become a major player in open-source administrative systems. The Kuali Foundation defines itself as a group of organizations that aims to "build and sustain open-source software for higher education, by higher education." There are many other examples of open-source instruments being used in education other than the Kuali Foundation as well.[47]
"For educators, The Open Source Movement allowed access to software that could be used in teaching students how to apply the theories they were learning".[48] With open networks and software, teachers are able to share lessons, lectures, and other course materials within a community. OpenTechComm is a program that is dedicated to "open access, open use, and open edits- text book or pedagogical resource that teachers of technical and professional communication courses at every level can rely on to craft free offerings to their students."[49] As stated earlier, access to programs like this would be much more cost efficient for educational departments.

Open source in healthcare — Created in June 2009 by the nonprofit eHealthNigeria, the open-source software OpenMRS is used to document health care in Nigeria. The use of this software began in Kaduna, Nigeria to serve the purpose of public health. OpenMRS manages features such as alerting health care workers when patients show warning signs for conditions and records births and deaths daily, among other features. The success of this software is caused by its ease of use for those first being introduced to the technology, compared to more complex proprietary healthcare software available in first world countries. This software is community-developed and can be used freely by anyone, characteristic of open-source applications. So far, OpenMRS is being used in Rwanda, Mozambique, Haiti, India, China, and the Philippines.[50] The impact of open source in healthcare is also observed by Apelon Inc, the "leading provider of terminology and data interoperability solutions". Recently, its Distributed Terminology System (Open DTS) began supporting the open-source MySQL database system. This essentially allows for open-source software to be used in healthcare, lessening the dependence on expensive proprietary healthcare software. Due to open-source software, the healthcare industry has available a free open-source solution to implement healthcare standards. Not only does open source benefit healthcare economically, but the lesser dependence on proprietary software allows for easier integration of various systems, regardless of the developer.[51]

• Weber, Steven (2004). The Success of Open Source. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. pp. 20–28. ISBN 978-0-674-01858-7.
• Meeker, Heather (2008). The Open Source Alternative: Understanding Risks and Leveraging Opportunities. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-19495-9.
• Schrape, Jan-Felix (2019). "Open-source projects as incubators of innovation. From niche phenomenon to integral part of the industry". Convergence. 25 (3): 409–427. doi:10.1177/1354856517735795.
• Software Freedom Law Center (3 March 2008). "A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects".
• The Open Source Movement (24 October 2010). "The Open Source Movement". Archived from the original on 29 July 2013. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
• Rosen, Lawrence (July 2009). "Bad facts make good law: The Jacobsen case and Open Source". International Free and Open Source Software Review. Software Freedom Law Center, Inc.
• Howe, Denis. "Copyleft". The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing. Retrieved 2010-10-14.
• Goettsch, Kerry D. (2003). "SCO Group v. IBM: The Future of Open Source Software". Journal of Law, Technology & Policy: 581.
• "The Open Source Definition". Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 2010-10-14.
• Wayner, P. (2000). Free for all: how Linux and the free software movement undercut the high-tech titans. Harperbusiness. ISBN 978-0-06-662050-3.
• Kirk St. Amant (2011). "Open Source Software, Access, and Content creation in the global economy".
• Still (2010). "A Dozen Years After Open Source's 1998 Birth, It's Time For OpenTechComm".
• ssy.org.uk/2012/01/the-online-revolution/ The Online Revolutionarchived at https://web.archive.org/web/20130718231856/http://ssy.org.uk/2012/01/the-online-revolution/