Here, differences between open source and free software are argued again. We come back to this question: is open source “free beer” or “free speech”?
On early stage, free-software advocates were aiming to fight against those proprietary software capitalists. However, this “free” idea didn’t fit the current situation because free software companies were difficult to defeat those “capitalists” due to a lack of commercial ascendancy. So it changed. Some believe open source has lost its soul which is against the “copyright-toting software capitalists”.
In the article “Is open source losing its soul?” the author, Asay, suggests that, in current situation, it is better for open source to keep “some bits proprietary” than “hold to a purist software development philosophy”. He is right. As I wrote on a previous blog, an open source company sometimes needs an adoption to fit new environment in order to grow stronger, including changing strategies. If open source companies follow a "proprietary" way, even it seems being radically changed from the initial approach, to become more competitive against those “proprietary” companies, it can enhance the their own competitive power. This is a necessity in the expansion of open source. As Asay points out, “companies should be putting profitability first. It's the necessity that makes every other necessity possible”. Therefore, most open source companies are now holding a different ideology from free software purists. It means “free speech” but not “free beer” at all.
Moreover, after a successful beginning, open source companies can drive those “proprietary” companies, like Oracle and IBM, contributing codes to open source. If possible, open source can finally win this battle against copyright-toting capitalism. So it is much more convinced that the current form of open source is apart from its initial model, especially not in a charge-free way.
Sources: Is open source losing its soul?
Retrieved from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10253671-16.html
No comments:
Post a Comment