Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Jul 8th, 2020
72
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 5.60 KB | None | 0 0
  1. Open Source Licenses
  2. “An open source license is a licensing model that allows the redistribution and modification of software” (Fogel 8). Open source licensing began in the 1990s, and was the original licensing model before proprietary licensing came around (Meeker). Proprietary licensing is a for-profit licensing model unlike open source licensing. “The two models for software licensing originate to one source: the Unix operating system” (Meeker). The Unix operating system was developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories in the late 60s to early 70s (Meeker). Unix was the first general use operating system available. AT&T first privatized Unix for profit, but at the time AT&T’s market share was immense and the U.S. Justice Department put a decree which only allowed them so sell their telephonic services (Meeker). In response AT&T open sourced the code, and it became popular among many computer scientists in the 70s (Meeker). In the 1990s interest reemerged in open source after the U.S. Justice Department lifted the decree on AT&T who privatized Unix once more (Meeker). People wanted a free alternative to Unix, and Linus Torvlads who went to University of Helsinki developed Linux for a school project (Meeker). Linux was based off of Unix and was free of any proprietary code and was completely free (Meeker). However, Linux was just the barebones operating system without any utilities to work with but, the GNU (Gnu Not Unix) Project was developing utilities as such that were licensed under open source, and together made the Linux operating system (Meeker). Linux was licensed under the GPL (General Public License) although there are more than just the GPL to use as a license such as the Apache License 2.0, LGPL, MIT License, and BSD 3-Clause (“Licenses and Standards”). Most open source licenses have the same concept: “You are allowed to redistribute and modify open source software” (Fogel 8). The use of open source licenses for mainstream software such as Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Windows, etc should be more common. Open source allows the internet to be free and open, and keeps the software transparent to the community.
  3. Even though open source isn’t for-profit there are plenty of benefits that come along with it. Some profits for the community more than the developers such as the right to fork which allows a person to change the direction the project is moving, and be able to change some ways the project works (Fogel 8). Another gain that may not seem like it is that an open source community doesn’t come together from control or leverage, but by finding common interests which can in return benefit the productivity and interest of a project (Fogel 8). Free and open source software is known to be remarkable for its lightness of investment (Fogel 8). “With open source licenses diverse markets environments can change” (August). In some cases the one who created it can do major improvements, while the community can do minor tasks like bug fixes (Fogel 8). While not making a lot of money there are other positives that come along with being open source.
  4. For example the Wikipedia is a huge example of participatory creation that seems as if it should be an impossible, chaotic, and unmanageable mess (Fogel 8). However, even though Wikipedia is free to use there is a difference between free and open source. Free is the same as obtaining an executable(to perform indicated tasks according to encoded instructions) and running it, unlike being able to use it for free and have access to the source code (Fogel 47-48). Also, open source projects don’t compete for market share(dollars from users) instead they compete for developer mind share (Fogel 8). Also, open source projects don’t follow a leader who is “irresponsible, obstinate, or technically unsophisticated” (Fogel 7). Some companies who experimented with involving users in the design of follow-up products, or delivering toolkits have created new cases and/or have solved complex problems (Fogel 8). A lot of projects and companies have succeeded with the use of having their products under an open source license such as The Linux Foundation, The GNU Project, Microsoft, System76, Canonical, Mozilla, Google, Purism, Android, etc.
  5. Yet there have been many successes with open source we don’t often hear about the ones that don’t succeed (Fogel 5). Open source projects don’t fail they just lose interest or the community has moved on. However, an open source license doesn’t ensure that a multitude of people are willing to devote time and energy to a project which can cause an unfamiliar set of complexities (Fogel 8). One of the most frequent mistakes are the unrealistic expectations of open source itself (Fogel 5). An example of those expectations is that everyone will agree on the way the project is handled which is not the case most of the time (Fogel 56). Another case is contributing efficiency that can be a double-bladed sword. It can pay off for quality and time or they can be very effective and take over (Onetti). At the same time open source can be very beneficial it can become the outcome of several problems.
  6. Open source doesn’t just allow projects and communities to thrive, but allow the internet to be open and transparent. It gives permission for anyone to look at the source code, contribute, and use some of the code for personal use. Also, while being nonprofit it can enable projects and/or companies to be efficient the development of their product, and have people do minor and tedious tasks which can improve the quality of a project. Being open source should be in the mind of any company or persons wanting to make software.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement