Open Source Software is computer software available under a license that permits the free redistribution of the source code. Users are permitted to use and modify the software, and such development is often carried out in a public and collaborative way. The concept of Open Source has probably been in existence as long as computer software itself, its roots being associated with science and engineering where the sharing of information has long been a central tenet.

 

Any web search on "Open Source" will reveal a number of intense and often heated discussions going back years about definitions of freedom associated with free software. We discuss elsewhere on this site why the top link on this search is a url sponsored by Microsoft. There have been misunderstandings with the Free Software Foundation's definition,  "'Free' as in 'speech', not 'free' as in 'beer'", which have led to the belief that the free software movement is, in some way, opposed to the needs of business.

 

To address this issue, the Open Source Initative (OSI) was formed in 1998 to try and recover some of the damaged caused by infighting within the free software community which was actively hijacked by a number of software corporations with campaigns of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) which were applied in the belief that free software is a challenge to free enterprise. Thus the term Open Source Software (OSS) was coined. There has been criticism of the term "OSS" in that it does not clarify whether the freedom to use the software is part of the license or not. As a consequence, the terms "Free Open Source Software" (FOSS) and "Free-Libre Open Source Software" (FLOSS) have come into usage to try and clarify the matter.

 

Licensing of free software started with Richard Stallman of the GNU and Free Software Foundation (FSF) projects creating a license to protect the freedom of both the developer and the user. The GNU Public License (GPL), in its most widely applied form, accounts for over 60% of all Free and Open Source Software licensing. It legally requires that the holder of the license does not restrict the freedom of others to have access to the code. For example, if an organisation wishes to release an application, if the application contains code under the GPL, then the GPL requires that the source code of the application must be available as well.. Freedom for all is built into the license, not freedom to withhold. Both the FSF and OSI list an almost identical catalogue of Free and Open Source Software licenses that meet their criteria.

 

In some respects, the free software movement does offer a challenge to certain business models in that it attempts to provide alternatives to monopolistic applications and systems. We all have a need to get a job done but, in certain circumstances, it seems that there is no choice in the software we can use: not because there is no choice in systems that can actually get the job done, but because of the lack of adherence to standards of interoperability, and so we find ourselves committed to having to purchase from a particular vendor. This can have a severe financial impact on a business and may even be cost prohibitive in achieving goals.

 

In all likelihood FOSS does impact on the profit margins of software vendors. As users begin to perceive the value and quality of FOSS, the relative value of closed source diminishes for every user and the profit from proprietary software is diminished.

 

Despite perceptions, FOSS is currently in broad usage: a large proportion of the Internet infrastructure is dependent on it; most websites are built using it; and it is used by most large IT corporations.

 

 

            Schematic of Free and Open Source licenses (www.gnu.org)