Summary: Open source is not open source software, and open source is not an organization. Open source is a model and we should treat it as such. Further, as an economic model, it competes with capitalism.
Open source is not a type of software, nor is it a characteristic of software. Instead, it is a way of thinking. It is a model. It is a way to operate.
When people use the term open source they often mean open source software. But that is very limited because open source is larger than what many people understand. For example, the Open Source Initiative’s FAQ includes the following information:
Unfortunately, nearly all definitions of open source focus on open source software versus open source itself. Good definitions expand on several ideas, such as how to use and distribute source code. Thus, open source is about how to treat the code, and how to think about it. It certainly isn’t just about free software, but that is a different topic entirely. Suffice it to say that open source is not functionally equivalent to open source software. They are different animals entirely.
The failure to realize that open source is more valuable as a model than open source software artifacts is a failure of marketing. Most people involved in the open source community equate the ideas of open source to open source software. Further, they sell benefits related to open source software (e.g., security, reliability, performance) versus the open source model itself. These are certainly benefits but they are benefits of open source software, not the model. There is a difference.
Open Source is not an Organization
There is a tendency to treat open source like it is an organization or an entity. People want to tie open source it to an organization or entity. The reality is that open source is not an entity. And, it is not an organization. Open source is a model. It is a way of thinking and operating. Therefore, open source doesn’t compete against any organizations.
This has some huge implications. The idea that open source competes against for-profit organizations is a non-starter. It is not even an argument since open source cannot be compared to organizations. You cannot compare something that is clearly not an organization with an organization. You cannot compare a model to an organization. You cannot compare apples to oranges.
You cannot compare open source to Microsoft.
Don’t even bother arguing about this or you will be wasting your time. If you agree that open source is a method, a way of thinking, and a model, then it is clearly not an organization or an entity. Therefore, you cannot say that open source is in any sort of fight with an organization such as Microsoft. It simply doesn’t make any sense so give up. It won’t work.
However.
Open source software can be compared to other open source software, and software produced by for-profit organizations. That is, open source software can be compared to software produced by Microsoft. You can fight all you want about that. Have a ball. But, don’t waste your time comparing open source itself, which is a process, to Microsoft, which is an entity.
Open Source Competes Against Capitalism
If you buy the concept that open source is a model, or a way to act, or a way to behave, then there are other implications. One major implication is that open source can compete against other models. Models are compared to models all the time, much like theories are compared to other theories. This isn’t a perfect way to think about the issue, but you can probably follow.
If open source doesn’t compete against organizations like Microsoft, because it isn’t logical and it doesn’t make sense, what does it compete against? You might have been thinking this for a long time, but it doesn’t really show up in books and articles. It is on the tip of your tongue.
Open source is an economic model and it competes with capitalism.
For some people, this might be completely obvious. For others, it might really hurt. There is pain associated with this idea, but it is basically true. Let’s take a look at a definition of capitalism:
It isn’t until you start comparing and contrasting open source to capitalism that you grok that open source really is a model. Until this point, you might have been able to ignore this central idea. But once you get actively engaged in the debate, it is easier to understand just how deep open source can be as a concept and model.
Open source advocates should care more about the implications of open source as a model than treating open source being the equivalent of open source software. It doesn’t make sense to sell open source short. It is a powerful model that has hardly been explored.
There are interesting implications. For example, if you want to succeed in the capitalist system, you need to understand certain principles, such as supply and demand, buy low and sell high, and so forth. There are similar ways to succeed (e.g., make money, gain recognition) using the open source model, but that is the topic of another essay.
Open source is not a type of software, nor is it a characteristic of software. Instead, it is a way of thinking. It is a model. It is a way to operate.
When people use the term open source they often mean open source software. But that is very limited because open source is larger than what many people understand. For example, the Open Source Initiative’s FAQ includes the following information:
“Open source promotes software reliability and quality by supporting independent peer review and rapid evolution of source code.”So in this sense, open source is something that helps people understand how to think and act. The very goal of open source isn’t software itself. Open source software is merely the output of the open source model. Open source is the engine whereas open source software is the movement resulting from the actions of the engine.
Unfortunately, nearly all definitions of open source focus on open source software versus open source itself. Good definitions expand on several ideas, such as how to use and distribute source code. Thus, open source is about how to treat the code, and how to think about it. It certainly isn’t just about free software, but that is a different topic entirely. Suffice it to say that open source is not functionally equivalent to open source software. They are different animals entirely.
The failure to realize that open source is more valuable as a model than open source software artifacts is a failure of marketing. Most people involved in the open source community equate the ideas of open source to open source software. Further, they sell benefits related to open source software (e.g., security, reliability, performance) versus the open source model itself. These are certainly benefits but they are benefits of open source software, not the model. There is a difference.
Open Source is not an Organization
There is a tendency to treat open source like it is an organization or an entity. People want to tie open source it to an organization or entity. The reality is that open source is not an entity. And, it is not an organization. Open source is a model. It is a way of thinking and operating. Therefore, open source doesn’t compete against any organizations.
This has some huge implications. The idea that open source competes against for-profit organizations is a non-starter. It is not even an argument since open source cannot be compared to organizations. You cannot compare something that is clearly not an organization with an organization. You cannot compare a model to an organization. You cannot compare apples to oranges.
You cannot compare open source to Microsoft.
Don’t even bother arguing about this or you will be wasting your time. If you agree that open source is a method, a way of thinking, and a model, then it is clearly not an organization or an entity. Therefore, you cannot say that open source is in any sort of fight with an organization such as Microsoft. It simply doesn’t make any sense so give up. It won’t work.
However.
Open source software can be compared to other open source software, and software produced by for-profit organizations. That is, open source software can be compared to software produced by Microsoft. You can fight all you want about that. Have a ball. But, don’t waste your time comparing open source itself, which is a process, to Microsoft, which is an entity.
Open Source Competes Against Capitalism
If you buy the concept that open source is a model, or a way to act, or a way to behave, then there are other implications. One major implication is that open source can compete against other models. Models are compared to models all the time, much like theories are compared to other theories. This isn’t a perfect way to think about the issue, but you can probably follow.
If open source doesn’t compete against organizations like Microsoft, because it isn’t logical and it doesn’t make sense, what does it compete against? You might have been thinking this for a long time, but it doesn’t really show up in books and articles. It is on the tip of your tongue.
Open source is an economic model and it competes with capitalism.
For some people, this might be completely obvious. For others, it might really hurt. There is pain associated with this idea, but it is basically true. Let’s take a look at a definition of capitalism:
“Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.”Capitalism is clearly a model, or a system. The core ideas are private property, competition for gain, and free markets dominate. In contrast, open source is about public property, cooperation for gain, and free markets dominate. Two out of three core concepts are different in the models, but one is the same. In any event, both of systems care about property, gains, and free markets. What is different is how they care. This is why the models are different.
It isn’t until you start comparing and contrasting open source to capitalism that you grok that open source really is a model. Until this point, you might have been able to ignore this central idea. But once you get actively engaged in the debate, it is easier to understand just how deep open source can be as a concept and model.
Open source advocates should care more about the implications of open source as a model than treating open source being the equivalent of open source software. It doesn’t make sense to sell open source short. It is a powerful model that has hardly been explored.
There are interesting implications. For example, if you want to succeed in the capitalist system, you need to understand certain principles, such as supply and demand, buy low and sell high, and so forth. There are similar ways to succeed (e.g., make money, gain recognition) using the open source model, but that is the topic of another essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment